Josh Waizer specializes in analysis of industry and competition issues in the healthcare and life sciences sectors. He has more than a decade of experience supporting testifying experts and providing consulting expertise to clients through all stages of litigation and government investigations. His work focuses on health insurance and provider issues and includes expertise in analyzing large healthcare claims data sets. He also has experience in matters involving mergers, monopolization and monopsonization, class certification, pricing and reimbursements, health plan networks, contract disputes, intellectual property, and damages assessment in the pharmaceutical and healthcare provider industries.
BA, Economics (with honors), Brandeis University
BA, Politics, Brandeis University
- In Florida Emergency Physicians et al. v. Celtic Insurance Company (Florida Circuit Court), led the team supporting Arun Sharma and served as a consulting expert on the economics of healthcare prices and the determination of usual, customary, and reasonable (UCR) rates.
- In Ronald Emilio Reyna v. Celtic Insurance Company (US District Court for the Southern District of Florida), led the team supporting Arun Sharma and served as a consulting expert on the economics of healthcare prices and the determination of UCR rates.
- In In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, supported testifying experts and provided consulting expertise on causation and damages on behalf of a manufacturer defendant concerning allegations of inappropriate marketing of prescription opioids.
- Supported the testifying expert for the plaintiff in a large monopolization case in the tech industry in providing written and deposition testimony on issues of market definition, market power, and competitive effects.
- Led the team supporting the expert working on behalf of Emory Healthcare to analyze potential competitive effects of its proposed acquisition of DeKalb Medical Center.
- On behalf of Steward Health Care in Steward Health Care System LLC et al. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, co-led the team supporting Professor Leemore Dafny in providing written and deposition testimony on monopoly power, monopsony power, and exclusionary conduct.
- On behalf of Humana in connection with its proposed merger with Aetna, provided support for responses to the Department of Justice's second request and analyzed likely competitive effects in the sale of Medicare Advantage products.
In In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network “UCR” Rates Litigation, provided consulting services to defense counsel and supported the expert on economic issues associated with class certification and merits on behalf of defendant WellPoint.
Supported the expert on behalf of a large health plan in a Department of Labor investigation regarding the health plan’s reimbursement methodology.
Provided consulting and expert support to a large health insurer in an arbitration matter involving contract dispute with a hospital system.
Supported the expert on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission in its proceedings seeking to block Cabell Huntington Hospital’s acquisition of St. Mary’s Medical Center in Huntington, WV.
- In In re Seattle Children’s Hospital, supported expert testimony on the role of high value provider networks in containing health care costs and the necessity of competitive provider contracting under the Affordable Care Act.
Provided consulting support to counsel for a major brand name pharmaceutical company in litigation alleging its marketing practices violated state law.
In Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc., supported the expert's work on commercial success as an objective indicator of patent non-obviousness on behalf of petitioner Purdue’s inter partes review challenge to the validity of certain Depomed patents.
Supported a testifying expert and provided consulting expertise on behalf of a healthcare provider to analyze the competitive effects of another healthcare provider’s exclusionary contracts with health insurers.
Supported testifying expert and provided consulting expertise on behalf of a pharmaceutical supplier in connection with actions taken by the Drug Enforcement Administration to revoke its controlled substance certificate of registration.