Amerigroup Tennessee calculated, in writing, that it stood to recover $6 million (roughly enough to pay a year of health insurance premiums for 400 Tennessee families) if it could successfully destroy a company that was bringing allergy care to rural communities that had never had it, and then it went ahead and did exactly that.

The Setup: One Company, 70% of the Market, and the Patients Left Behind

Between 30 and 40% of Americans suffer from seasonal hay fever, according to the court record. That is tens of millions of people sneezing, wheezing, and struggling through every spring and fall. And the only treatment that can actually cure seasonal allergies, not just paper over the symptoms, is immunotherapy: a multi-year course of shots that gradually desensitizes your immune system to the allergens attacking it.

In Tennessee, access to that cure runs through a single corporation. The Allergy, Asthma and Sinus Center, P.C., a private allergy-care network known in this case as “the Center,” controls approximately 70% of all allergy testing and immunotherapy services across the entire state. When you have three-quarters of a market locked down, you have a monopoly in every meaningful sense. And monopolies, as a rule, do not respond well to competition.

The problem for rural Tennesseans was structural and brutal in its simplicity. Becoming a board-certified allergist requires completing a specialized fellowship. Tennessee has a finite number of those specialists, and they cluster in cities. Many Tennesseans live far from the nearest allergist. The court record describes a situation where restricted supply caused demand to “greatly exceed” available services, and many “patient consumers” simply went without treatment.

The Company That Tried to Fill the Gap

United Allergy Services identified this gap and built a business model around closing it. Starting in 2013, United Allergy began contracting with primary-care physicians, the family doctors and general practitioners already located in rural communities, to help those doctors offer allergy testing and immunotherapy in their own offices.

The arrangement was carefully constructed. United Allergy hired and supplied the trained technicians. It provided all the equipment and materials needed to perform skin-prick tests and prepare immunotherapy doses. The physicians retained full medical authority: they made every clinical decision, interpreted every test result, and supervised every procedure. Only the doctors billed the insurers. United Allergy simply charged the doctors a flat fee for its goods and services, and the doctors used insurer reimbursements to pay that fee.

By the time this case reached federal court, United Allergy had helped more than 80 primary-care doctors across Tennessee offer allergy care, many of them in rural areas where the nearest board-certified allergist was many miles away. For patients in those communities, this was the first time allergy testing and immunotherapy were available without a long drive and a long wait. United Allergy technicians also routinely taught patients how to self-administer their immunotherapy shots at home, cutting out the need for two or three office visits per week, every week, for years.

The Threat That Started the War

United Allergy’s entry into the Tennessee market in 2013 immediately caught the attention of two groups: the Center, which stood to lose patients its allergists had previously received as referrals from primary-care doctors, and Amerigroup Tennessee, which stood to pay more in reimbursements as more patients actually received care.

TennCare, Tennessee’s Medicaid program, pays Amerigroup on a per-member-per-month schedule set annually based on prior-year usage. When United Allergy’s model dramatically expanded the supply of allergy care and more patients actually accessed treatment, Amerigroup’s reimbursement obligations rose sharply. More sick people getting care meant more costs for the insurer. The court record states plainly that the sharp increase in supply harmed Amerigroup’s bottom line more than TennCare’s. The insurer’s financial incentive to eliminate that supply was direct and documented.

The Conspiracy: Lobbying, Audits, and the $6 Million Motive

In April 2014, Ned DeLozier, business-development director for Physicians’ Medical Enterprises (the management company running the Center), learned that United Allergy’s model threatened the Center’s dominance. His documented response was immediate and aggressive. DeLozier first tried to lobby public officials to outright ban United Allergy’s business model. He tried to personally discourage primary-care physicians from signing contracts with the company.

When those efforts failed by 2016, DeLozier pivoted to the insurers. He began encouraging Amerigroup and other third-party payors to conduct costly audits of United Allergy’s partner physicians. According to the complaint, between 2016 and 2019, Amerigroup and DeLozier repeatedly communicated with Amerigroup’s competing payors, including the other two managed-care organizations in TennCare, to convince all of them to investigate and stop paying United Allergy’s partnering physicians.

The court record describes what happened next as a coordinated enforcement campaign. The insurers ramped up audits, sent physicians recoupment letters demanding repayment of claims already paid, and blocked physicians from billing for immunotherapy that patients administered at home. The insurers also agreed to fix prices by reimbursing for a dramatically smaller number of immunotherapy doses than they had previously allowed, capping units at 150 doses per member per calendar year with a three-month supply restriction.

The Price-Fixing Agreement in Plain Language

What the insurers did carries a specific legal name: a buyers’ cartel. A group of buyers, in this case a group of health insurers, agreed among themselves to pay a fixed, below-market price for services. The effect of a buyers’ cartel is symmetrical to a price-fixing cartel among sellers: it artificially reduces prices and output below competitive levels. When the cartel collectively agreed to reimburse zero dollars for doses beyond their fixed cap, they were collectively dictating terms that no single competitive insurer would have the leverage to impose unilaterally.

The court’s own analysis acknowledges that the complaint plausibly describes an agreement between a dominant seller, the Center, and several buyers, the managed-care organizations, to fix prices and boycott competition at the primary care level. This is the language of horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. The physicians who tried to offer allergy care through United Allergy faced a wall: bill for services and get denied, audited, and threatened with recoupment, or stop offering the services entirely.

The Result: 60 Clinics, Zero Reimbursements, No Care

The strategy worked. The complaint documents that many primary-care physicians stopped offering allergy-care services entirely because Amerigroup and the other insurers refused to reimburse them and because they feared being kicked out of TennCare, which would have destroyed their medical practices. United Allergy lost profits because those physicians refused to pay its fees and terminated their contracts. Most critically, the reduction in supply left many patients, especially in rural areas, without access to any allergy care at all.

A United Allergy officer testified that 60 contracting clinics had made at least one late payment in violation of their contract terms during this period. An internal Amerigroup email from 2018 documented a significant drop in allergy-care payments between 2015 and 2017 after the company “opened all of the cases” on United Allergy. The employee noted that Amerigroup had not completely “flushed” United Allergy out of Tennessee because investigators had focused only on top billers and some smaller clinics might still have United Allergy contracts. The word “flushed” appears directly in the court record. This is not interpretation. This is what they wrote to each other.

The Non-Financial Ledger: What Rural Families Actually Lost

The Allergy You Cannot Escape

Start with the basic medical reality. Immunotherapy is the only treatment that can cure seasonal allergies, not reduce them, not manage them, but actually resolve the underlying immune dysfunction causing them. Every other treatment, the antihistamines, the nasal sprays, the prescription pills, these mask symptoms while doing nothing about the root cause. For millions of Tennesseans, immunotherapy represented the realistic possibility of one day not suffering through every spring and fall. That possibility required consistent, long-term access to a provider administering the shots, sometimes two to three times per week, for several years.

When United Allergy brought allergy testing and immunotherapy into rural primary-care offices, it did not just create a business opportunity. It created the first realistic path to a cure for communities that had never had one. A family in rural East Tennessee whose nearest allergist was an hour’s drive away could now get tested and treated by the doctor they already trusted in the town where they already lived. The convenience was not a luxury. For people working hourly jobs who cannot take half a day off multiple times a week to drive to a specialist, proximity is the difference between getting treatment and not getting treatment at all.

The Patients the Settlement Count Will Never Include

When Amerigroup and the Center’s operatives drove United Allergy’s partner physicians out of the allergy-care market, they did not produce a neat list of patients harmed. They produced a silence. The patients who would have been tested and diagnosed but now never were, the patients who would have started immunotherapy but stopped when their doctor’s clinic suddenly stopped offering it, the patients who decided the hour-long drive was too far and simply went back to their antihistamines: none of these people appear in the court record by name. They are the statistical ghost of what rural healthcare looks like when corporate interests decide a market is more valuable than a community’s health.

The court record states explicitly that “the reduction in output also left many patients without access to allergy care (especially in rural areas).” This sentence is doing enormous work. “Access to allergy care” is the clinical language for something much more human: children who sneeze through every school year; adults who cannot work outside during planting or harvest seasons; elderly patients whose allergies have quietly progressed into asthma because the underlying immune sensitivity was never treated. The court affirmed the business outcome and left the human outcome unaddressed, because the law as written gave it no other option.

The Insult of the “Fraud” Accusation

Before the audits came the accusation. Amerigroup’s strategy for justifying its campaign against United Allergy’s partner physicians included hypothesizing that these physicians were engaged in “fraudulent billing.” The company accused community doctors of submitting claims for services not properly supervised, or services not medically necessary. It used these accusations to trigger audits, send recoupment letters, and create enough legal and financial fear that physicians would simply stop offering the care rather than fight an insurance company in a dispute that could threaten their entire TennCare contracts.

The cruelty of this tactic is worth naming directly. These were primary-care physicians, often solo or small-group practitioners in rural communities, who had taken on a new service line specifically to help their patients access care that was otherwise unavailable. They had done so under a carefully structured legal arrangement. Amerigroup, knowing its own contract with TennCare required it to act against fraud, then weaponized that obligation by treating these doctors as suspected fraudsters, initiating investigations, demanding money back, and letting the fear of losing their TennCare participation rights, which would have ended their practices entirely, do the work of driving them out. The doctors were not fraudsters. They were, by the court’s own account, physicians who may have been operating under a debatable interpretation of subcontractor rules, a question so genuinely uncertain that a state court later found it required a jury trial.

Legal Receipts: What They Actually Said and Did

Quote 1: The $6 Million Motive

“Amerigroup estimated that it ‘stood to recover’ around $6 million if it ‘flushed [United Allergy] out of Tennessee.'” Sixth Circuit Court Opinion, No. 24-5153 — Citing United Allergy Complaint, R.103, PageID 2690

Quote 2: The “Flushed” Confirmation Email

“A 2018 email from an Amerigroup employee that compiled allergy-care payment data after Amerigroup ‘opened all of the cases on’ United Allergy. This data showed a significant drop in payments between 2015 and 2017. The employee explained that Amerigroup had not ‘completely flushed [United Allergy] out of Tennessee’ because it had investigated only the top billers and a lot of ‘little clinics’ might still have contracts with United Allergy.” Sixth Circuit Court Opinion, No. 24-5153 — Citing Email, R.299-5, PageID 15971–72

Quote 3: DeLozier’s Explicit Strategy to “Cut United Allergy Out”

“DeLozier bemoaned that United Allergy’s model encouraged physicians ‘to test everyone’ for allergies even though only about a third of patients need testing. DeLozier also claimed that he had ‘many examples’ of primary-care physicians misdiagnosing nonallergic patients with allergies. He suggested that the Center should encourage insurers like Amerigroup to conduct ‘medical necessity audits’ of primary-care physicians because he believed the physicians would flunk these audits, which would ‘cut [United Allergy] out of [the] pic[.]'” Sixth Circuit Court Opinion, No. 24-5153 — Citing Email, R.352-11, PageID 20623

Quote 4: The Direct Impact on Patients

“The reduction in output also left many patients without access to allergy care (especially in rural areas).” Sixth Circuit Court Opinion, No. 24-5153 — Citing United Allergy Complaint, R.103, PageID 2704–05

Quote 5: The Coordinated Price-Fixing Agreement

“Amerigroup and the other insurers allegedly ‘fixed prices at the reimbursement level of 150 doses/units per member per calendar year with a 3-month supply reimbursement restriction.’ So if physicians provided doses above these limits, the insurers paid zero.” Sixth Circuit Court Opinion, No. 24-5153, pp. 20–21 — Citing United Allergy Complaint, R.103, PageID 2701–02

Societal Impact Mapping

Public Health: The Cure That Became Unavailable

The public health impact of this conspiracy begins with a fact the court itself states: immunotherapy is the only treatment that can cure seasonal allergies. Everything else manages symptoms. When Amerigroup and the Center’s coordinated campaign drove United Allergy’s partner physicians out of the allergy-care market, they did not just reduce a company’s revenue. They removed the only curative treatment option from communities in rural Tennessee that had never had robust access to specialist allergy care in the first place.

The scale of potential harm is significant. Seasonal allergic rhinitis affects between 30 and 40% of the entire population. In Tennessee, the Center’s allergists conduct approximately 70% of all allergy testing and immunotherapy statewide. Before United Allergy’s entry in 2013, restricted supply had allegedly caused demand to “greatly exceed” available services, and many patient consumers were already going without treatment. United Allergy’s model, by bringing testing and treatment into rural primary-care offices, had begun to close that gap. The coordinated campaign forced those offices back out of the market, re-creating and likely worsening the access gap that had existed before 2013.

The court record also describes the immunotherapy regimen in terms that underscore why proximity matters so acutely for public health outcomes. Some patients receive shots two to three times per week for several years. Without a local provider, completing that course of treatment is realistically impossible for most rural patients. The consequence of not completing immunotherapy is continued allergic sensitization, which in some patients progressively worsens and can develop into asthma. The denial of convenient allergy care is not an inconvenience. It is a public health pipeline: untreated allergies become more severe allergies, which become respiratory disease.

Economic Inequality: The Geography of Who Gets Cured

The market dynamics described in this case operate as a mechanism for producing healthcare inequality along geographic and economic lines. Board-certified allergists cluster in urban and suburban areas. Rural Tennesseans, who are statistically more likely to be lower-income, less likely to have flexible work schedules, and less likely to own reliable transportation, face the longest distances to specialist care. The United Allergy model specifically targeted this gap by embedding allergy care in the primary-care offices that rural communities already used and trusted.

The insurer’s financial incentive structure made attacking this model rational from a pure cost-minimization standpoint. TennCare, the Medicaid program involved, pays Amerigroup on a per-member-per-month basis set from prior-year usage. When United Allergy dramatically increased the supply of allergy care and more Medicaid-enrolled patients actually accessed treatment, Amerigroup’s reimbursement obligations rose. The court record states this directly: the sharp increase in supply harmed Amerigroup’s bottom line. In other words, the insurer had a direct financial incentive to ensure that low-income, rural Medicaid patients did not access allergy care. Fewer treated patients meant lower costs for Amerigroup.

Related posts:

Inside the FTC’s war on Amazon’s pricing power and algorithmic abuse. The Corporate Cartel in the Archery Industry How Assurance IQ Profited by Selling Deception as Insurance Vertex Energy vs. Penthol: A partnership destroyed by suspicion and a preemptive strike