PubMed · 11640857
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
H C Silberman. 1998. [Not Available].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11640857/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
AIM: To consider the application of the Commerce Act 1986 to the conduct of medical practitioners and practitioner associations and societies, with special reference to the recent Ophthalmologists' case and the lessons which can be learned from that. DISCUSSION: The Commerce Commission recently took successful action (under Section 27 [s27] of the Commerce Act) against the Ophthalmological Society of New Zealand and several ophthalmologists from the lower South Island. The case illustrates the ease with which practitioners can be drawn into anticompetitive arrangements, and practitioner associations and societies can become liable under the Act through the conduct of their officeholders. The article discusses the relevant prohibitions under the Act, and the way in which these can relate to individual practitioners and practitioner associations and societies. In particular, s27 applies not only when the purpose of an arrangement substantially lessens competition, but also when the effect or likely effect of the arrangement substantially lessens competition. Therefore arguing that conduct is for ethical or safety reasons will not be sufficient to avoid liability. CONCLUSION: Markets for medical services are treated just like the markets for most other services under the Commerce Act. Individual practitioners should avoid becoming involved in or giving support to conduct or arrangements, which may be anticompetitive. Practitioner associations and societies should exercise control over the actions of their officeholders, especially where the purpose or effect of these could be considered to be anticompetitive.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending its regulation governing reporting of deaths, serious injuries, and certain malfunctions related to medical devices. We are revising the regulation into plain language to make the regulation easier to understand, and we are making technical corrections. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we are publishing a companion proposed rule, under FDA's usual procedures for notice and comment, to provide a procedural framework to finalize the rule in the event we receive any significant adverse comment and withdraw the direct final rule.