Skip to content

Optum controversies

Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.

Back to profile6 entries

  1. 2026

    Maryland AG sues UnitedHealth Group and Optum over Medicaid system

    Lawsuit filed

    In August 2026, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown filed a lawsuit against UnitedHealth Group and Optum, Inc. The suit alleges that the companies defrauded the state Medicaid Program by supplying a defective computer system. The legal action centers on the alleged provision of this faulty system to the state's Medicaid program.

    Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown sued UnitedHealth Group and Optum, Inc., alleging they defrauded the state Medicaid Program by supplying a defective computer system.

  2. 2026

    Pennsylvania sues insulin makers and PBMs over alleged insulin price collusion

    Lawsuit filed

    Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against Eli Lilly and Co., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, and several pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), alleging that they colluded to raise insulin prices. The suit seeks structural changes, restitution, and financial penalties. The action was reported in connection with the Federal Trade Commission's settlement in a related matter. The allegations concern alleged collusion among the named insulin manufacturers and PBMs regarding insulin pricing.

    Pennsylvania sued Eli Lilly and Co., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, and several PBMs, alleging that they colluded to raise insulin prices. The lawsuit seeks structural changes, restitution, and financial penalties.

    Stated objective. Recover more than $27 million the county says it has paid to the companies.

    Source excerpt

    • The pharmaceutical companies included in the Pennsylvania case are Eli Lilly and Co., Novo Nordisk Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis US LLC. Several PBMs are included as defendants, including Express Scripts, Caremark, and Optum RX.
    • The state’s lawsuit seeks to institute “structural changes to ensure the companies lower costs to fair market prices and enable options for patients,” restitution for Pennsylvanians harmed by the scheme, and payments including financial penalties paid by the companies and the costs of the state’s investigation and lawsuit.
    • Last week, Pennsylvania sued a group of pharmaceutical companies and PBMs for allegedly colluding to raise insulin prices unnecessarily.
  3. 2019

    Healthcare algorithm racial-bias controversy

    A Science study reported that an algorithm used to identify patients for additional care underestimated the healthcare needs of Black patients relative to White patients with comparable levels of illness. The findings prompted debate about racial bias, proxy variables, and accountability in clinical decision-support systems. Optum stated that its tools were intended to help clinicians provide more effective care.

  4. 2019

    Haven employment and noncompete lawsuit

    UnitedHealth Group sued former Optum executive David William Smith over his proposed move to Haven, arguing that a noncompete agreement restricted the employment. The court allowed the dispute to proceed through arbitration rather than immediately blocking the move. The case drew attention to trade secrets, employee mobility, and competition among vertically integrated healthcare companies.

  5. Pharmacy-benefit-manager antitrust scrutiny

    Regulators and critics have scrutinized OptumRx and other large pharmacy-benefit managers over alleged conflicts of interest, exclusivity provisions, and practices that may limit competition or contribute to higher drug costs. The allegations form part of broader policy and antitrust debates concerning vertically integrated healthcare companies.

  6. Layoffs, outsourcing, and restructuring criticism

    Optum and UnitedHealth Group have faced recurring criticism from employees and former employees concerning layoffs, restructuring, and the outsourcing or offshoring of certain roles. Specific claims vary by business and location, and public documentation does not establish a single company-wide explanation for all workforce reductions.