How is there an argument of wrongdoing here when the regulatory approach for healthcare is still based around this idea that multiple anticompetitive arrangemen

How is there an argument of wrongdoing here when the regulatory approach for healthcare is still based around this idea that multiple anticompetitive arrangements (the price fixing between providers and "insurers") will somehow actually create competition? Like don't providers have to be standing alone as their own market independent of payer before one could say that UHC's actions here are specifically anti-competitive, rather than just the HMO system working as envisioned?