Arizona’s attorney general announced Monday that her office has launched a lawsuit against a health care cost‑management firm and several of the nation’s largest insurers, alleging a coordinated scheme that depressed payments for out‑of‑network care and shifted costs onto patients and providers. The complaint names MultiPlan, which the filing describes as a health care cost‑management company, along with Aetna, Centene, Cigna, Elevance, Health Care Service Corporation, Humana, Molina and UnitedHealthcare.
The lawsuit alleges the defendants relied on a common algorithm — and on confidential claims payment information shared through MultiPlan — to determine how much to pay for out‑of‑network services rather than making independent payment decisions. The attorney general’s office says the shared formula produced consistently low reimbursements across the industry and that those payouts have continued to decline over time, increasing insurer profit margins while burdening patients and medical providers.
Arizona attorney general speaking at a podium during a press conference announcing a lawsuit alleging price‑fixing by health insurers and a health care cost‑management company.
“MultiPlan and major insurance companies across Arizona allegedly conspired to keep payments to providers low in a scheme to pad their profit margins,” the attorney general said in a statement announcing the litigation. The office framed the behavior as a modern version of a classic price‑fixing agreement, saying in part: “By using a shared algorithm to set payments, these companies harmed doctors and patients alike — driving up patients’ risk of paying more out‑of‑pocket costs, depriving providers of fair payment and sometimes forcing them to accept payment below the costs incurred for treatment, and making it harder for Arizonans to get the care they needed. This case is another example of old‑fashioned price‑fixing using new technology, but it’s against the law all the same.”
The complaint asserts that the insurers followed MultiPlan’s pricing recommendations in a coordinated effort to reduce reimbursement levels, and that MultiPlan’s algorithm produced low payments regardless of the geographic location of care or the identity of the provider. The attorney general’s office says those practices effectively eliminated meaningful competition on price within the market for out‑of‑network reimbursements, keeping compensation low across the board and constraining providers’ ability to negotiate fairer terms.
The filing also describes tactics used when providers pushed back against the low offers. It alleges doctors and clinics who challenged payment amounts encountered MultiPlan employees who employed aggressive measures intended to pressure providers into accepting the proposed rates. The lawsuit points to particular impacts on providers in rural communities and on mental health clinics, saying those groups were disproportionately affected by the alleged conduct.
The attorney general’s complaint brings claims under the Arizona Uniform State Antitrust Act and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. It asks the court to enter a permanent injunction against the defendants, order that money be returned to patients, providers and other harmed parties, require the surrender of any profits earned as a result of the alleged scheme, and impose civil penalties. The suit seeks broad remedial relief to unwind what the office describes as coordinated suppression of out‑of‑network payments.
Responses from the companies named in the complaint were limited in the hours after the filing. Health Care Service Corporation provided a short statement saying it does not comment on pending litigation. A spokesman for CVS Health, responding on behalf of the company, said the allegations are denied and that the company will vigorously defend itself. The spokesman’s statement read in part: “We are aware of the complaint filed by the Arizona Attorney General against MultiPlan and strongly disagree with it. The allegations are without merit, and the company stands by its position that it complies with state and federal antitrust laws. It is not uncommon to see copycat complaints filed in matters such as these, and similar theories have previously been dismissed by courts, including in the Verity matter: VHS Liquidating Trust v. MultiPlan Corporation, et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC‑21‑594966. Because this is active litigation, we will defend ourselves through the legal process and will not comment further on the specifics of the complaint at this time. We remain focused on working with clients and partners across the healthcare ecosystem to make healthcare more transparent, accessible, and affordable for consumers.”
The attorney general’s office publicized the filing on social media, posting an announcement on X at 8:24 p.m. on June 1 that it had sued MultiPlan and several large insurers, alleging they had quietly built and operated a system that slashed payments to providers and increased out‑of‑pocket costs for Arizonans. The post reiterated the office’s view that the actions harmed both patients and providers and signaled that the state would seek judicial relief to reverse the practices alleged in the complaint.