PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 2038721

Antitrust and peer review.

Abstract

An antitrust action against a physician is unlikely if the following guidelines are followed: Do not agree with competing independent doctors on any terms of price, quantity, or quality, or the patients one is willing to serve, the location from which one is permitted to draw patients, or where one will locate offices. Also, do not agree to refuse to offer services to alternate delivery systems. Generally, those who serve on peer review committees are protected if decisions are reached after effort has been made to obtain the facts of the case, after adequate notice and fair hearing procedures are afforded to the physician involved, and when the action has been warranted by the facts and is in the furtherance of health care. An attorney who specializes in antitrust should be engaged. Members of peer review committees should not be in a position to benefit from the decision. They should document all transgressions of the accused, treat the accused fairly, and give him or her the opportunity to have due process.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J W Bettman. Antitrust and peer review.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-6257(91)90187-k

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Workable competition in health care: prospects for the Dutch design.

Since 1989 a gradual restructuring of the Dutch health care system is taking place to realize a multiple choice social health insurance system with workable competition among insurers and among health care providers. This paper investigates whether the structural change will induce the intended competition. An examination of the characteristics of the market for health insurance, physician services and hospital services in the Netherlands points out that the scope for competition is limited. If competition is to work, rather extensive government regulation to monitor the conduct of both providers and insurers is needed. Without an effective antitrust policy a high degree of concentration and collusion is likely.

Antitrust Laws

Quality assurance implications of federal peer review laws. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Patrick v. Burget, the landmark peer review case holding physicians liable under federal antitrust law for substantial damages caused by bad faith peer review, gave rise to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. As shown in the recent decision in Austin v. McNamara, the Act's conditional immunities may promote peer review. However, the Act also created the National Practitioner Data Bank, which may have a chilling effect on peer review. The quality assurance implications of each of these federal legal developments is analyzed.

Antitrust Laws