White House Analysis: Ban on Anti-Competitive Hospital Contracts Could Slash Prices

The White House has released an analysis suggesting that a nationwide ban on anti-steering, anti-tiering, and all-or-nothing bundled contracting could lead to significant price reductions in the healthcare sector. These mechanisms, which are alleged to insulate dominant hospital systems from competition, are being targeted in antitrust cases against OhioHealth and New York-Presbyterian.

The analysis estimates that a ban would reduce hospital and affiliated-physician prices by 18 percent, with a plausible range of 11 to 26 percent, in directly affected markets. This would result in savings of approximately $4,100 per inpatient admission through restored insurer bargaining leverage, patient sorting to lower-cost providers, and increased competition over time.

Employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) premiums in directly affected markets could fall by an estimated 6.5 percent, translating to annual savings of roughly $1,800 per family and $600 per individual. Scaling to a national level, the White House projects total ESI premium savings of about 1.6 percent, or $45 billion per year. The economic benefits would flow to workers through lower out-of-pocket costs and higher take-home wages, with gains concentrated among lower- and middle-income employees.

The expected effects vary by market structure. In markets with a dominant hospital system and competitive insurers, premium reductions of 4 to 6 percent are anticipated. Where both hospital and insurer have market power, reductions would be 2 to 3 percent, and in more competitive markets with lower clause prevalence, 1 to 2 percent. The analysis also notes that a ban could benefit rural communities by curbing the extension of urban market power into rural areas, potentially reducing premiums and improving the negotiating position of independent rural hospitals.

The Department of Justice filed antitrust complaints against OhioHealth in February 2026 and New York-Presbyterian in March 2026, alleging that their anti-steering restrictions are anticompetitive. Both cases remain pending.