Physical Therapy Associations Join Federal Antitrust Lawsuit Against Major Health Insurers

The American Physical Therapy Association and APTA Private Practice joined the MultiPlan Antitrust Litigation as plaintiffs in October 2025, alleging systematic underpayment of physical therapists and other healthcare providers for out-of-network services. The federal lawsuit names MultiPlan, recently rebranded as Claritev, along with major health insurance companies including UnitedHealth, Elevance, Humana, Aetna, Cigna, and various Blue Cross Blue Shield entities.

Allegations of Coordinated Pricing Practices

The litigation, filed in the Northern District Court of Illinois in 2024, alleges a coordinated scheme to set reimbursement rates for out-of-network services. The lawsuit claims these practices have operated since at least 2015, affecting healthcare providers across multiple specialties who treat patients outside insurance network agreements.

MultiPlan processes more than 80% of all commercial out-of-network reimbursement claims in the United States as of 2024. The company operates as an intermediary between health insurers and out-of-network providers, calculating payment amounts for services rendered outside established network contracts.

Out-of-network claims occur when patients receive care from providers not contracted with their insurance plans. Payment determination for these services involves complex calculations considering usual and customary charges, contract terms, and state regulations governing surprise billing and balance billing practices.

Healthcare Reimbursement Structure and Market Dynamics

Healthcare providers participate in insurance networks by negotiating contracted rates for specific services. In-network agreements establish predetermined payment amounts in exchange for patient volume and claims processing advantages. Out-of-network providers lack these agreements, leaving reimbursement subject to different calculation methodologies.

The lawsuit addresses repricing practices affecting providers who treat insured patients without network contracts. These situations arise when patients choose out-of-network providers, when network providers are unavailable, or during emergency situations where provider choice is limited.

Insurance companies utilize repricing organizations to determine appropriate payment amounts for out-of-network claims. These intermediaries analyze claims and recommend payment levels to insurers, who then remit payments to providers or patients depending on policy terms and state regulations.

Impact on Physical Therapy Practices

Physical therapy practices operate under diverse business models including independent practices, hospital-based departments, and corporate-owned chains. Reimbursement levels affect practice viability, particularly for smaller independent operations with limited negotiating leverage with insurers.

Out-of-network reimbursement affects practice revenue and financial planning. Providers treating patients outside network agreements face uncertainty about payment amounts and timing, complicating cash flow management and operational budgeting. Lower reimbursement rates increase financial pressure on practices managing overhead costs including staff salaries, equipment, and facility expenses.

The litigation seeks both injunctive relief to stop alleged practices and financial damages for affected providers. Claims against MultiPlan may extend back 10 years, potentially affecting numerous practices that operated outside network agreements during the relevant period.

Legal Framework and Antitrust Considerations

Antitrust laws prohibit coordinated actions that restrain trade or reduce competition. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal antitrust statutes through coordinated pricing practices affecting out-of-network reimbursement. Antitrust litigation in healthcare typically involves complex economic analysis of market effects, competitive dynamics, and harm to consumers or providers.

Federal courts evaluate antitrust claims using established legal frameworks, examining market power, competitive effects, and business justifications for challenged practices. Healthcare antitrust cases often involve extensive discovery processes reviewing internal communications, pricing methodologies, and market analyses.

The litigation represents organizational action by professional associations rather than individual provider claims. APTA participates as an organizational plaintiff seeking injunctive relief without making individual members parties to the lawsuit. Individual practices may pursue separate claims for financial damages through the same legal representation on contingency fee arrangements.

Healthcare Payment System Complexity

Healthcare reimbursement involves multiple stakeholders, including providers, insurers, employers, government programs, and patients. Payment methodologies vary by payer type, service category, geographic location, and contract terms. This complexity affects the predictability of provider revenue and financial management.

Network adequacy requirements in many states mandate insurers maintain sufficient provider networks ensuring patient access to covered services. When networks lack adequate providers, insurers may cover out-of-network services at higher reimbursement rates or waive patient cost-sharing requirements.

Balance billing regulations in many states limit providers’ ability to bill patients for differences between billed charges and insurance payments. Federal surprise billing legislation enacted in 2020 established dispute-resolution processes for certain out-of-network claims, though implementation continues to evolve through regulatory guidance and litigation.

Financial Implications for Healthcare Organizations

Reimbursement rates directly affect healthcare provider financial sustainability. Lower payment levels require higher patient volumes to maintain revenue, potentially affecting care quality and patient experience. Practices unable to maintain adequate revenue may reduce services, limit patient acceptance, or close operations.

Physical therapy is an essential healthcare service that manages musculoskeletal conditions, supports post-surgical recovery, and treats chronic pain. Access to physical therapy affects healthcare costs system-wide, as appropriate rehabilitation can prevent surgeries, reduce medication use, and improve functional outcomes.

The litigation outcome could affect reimbursement practices across healthcare sectors beyond physical therapy. Similar repricing practices affect other provider types, including mental health professionals, surgical centers, and laboratory services treating patients outside network arrangements.

Practice Participation and Legal Options

Individual practices affected by alleged repricing practices may pursue financial damages through separate legal claims. The law firms representing APTA in organizational litigation offer contingency-based representation to individual providers at reduced rates compared to typical contingency arrangements.

Practices considering participation must evaluate claims based on their out-of-network patient volume, reimbursement patterns, and financial records documenting payment shortfalls. Claims extending back 10 years require comprehensive financial documentation supporting damage calculations.

Professional associations increasingly engage in collective advocacy addressing systemic payment issues affecting member practices. These efforts complement traditional lobbying activities by utilizing legal mechanisms challenging practices alleged to violate federal law.

All content provided in this article is for informational purposes only. Matters discussed in this article are subject to change. For up-to-date information on this subject please contact a James Moore professional. James Moore will not be held responsible for any claim, loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of any information within these pages or any information accessed through this site.