PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 2122690

Antitrust principles for radiologists.

Abstract

As the practice of medicine becomes more competitive, the states' attorneys general, the Federal Trade Commission, the Justice Department, and individual competitors progressively will use the Sherman Antitrust Act to ensure a competitive market for the delivery of health care services. Therefore, radiologists must have an understanding of the purposes of the Sherman Act and an understanding of types of anticompetitive activities that will trigger civil and criminal penalties. Specifically, radiologists must avoid blatant violations, such as price fixing, division of markets, and group boycotts, any of which may elicit the interest of the Justice Department. Further, radiologists need to consult knowledgable legal counsel when carrying out peer review activities and when entering into exclusive contracts with hospitals, particularly hospitals that have significant market power.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S R Reuter. 1990. Antitrust principles for radiologists.. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.155.6.2122690

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