PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Antitrust Laws”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources

Contesting anticompetitive actions taken in the name of the state: state action immunity and health care markets.

The so-called state action doctrine is a judicially created formula for resolving conflicts between federal antitrust policy and state policies that seem to authorize conduct that antitrust law would prohibit. Against the background of recent commentaries by the federal antitrust agencies, this article reviews the doctrine and discusses its application in the health care sector, focusing on the ability of states to immunize anticompetitive actions by state licensing and regulatory boards, hospital medical staffs, and public hospitals, as well as anticompetitive mergers and agreements. Although states are free, as sovereign governments, to restrict competition, the state action doctrine requires that "the state itself" make the decision to do so. Partly on the basis of problems in the political environment, the article criticizes courts for using a mere "foreseeability" test to decide whether a state legislature sufficiently authorized competitors to act in contravention of clear federal policy: "Few things are more foreseeable than that a trade or profession empowered to regulate itself will produce anticompetitive regulations."

Antitrust Laws↗

Partial integration raises antitrust concerns.

Recently, providers have begun to explore a new model of integrated delivery system, the partially integrated IDS. Typically, a partially integrated IDS is a joint venture, owned by a core group of providers that maintains complete financial and operational independence outside the joint venture. The IDS contracts with other providers to furnish services that the part-owners do not furnish. A partially integrated IDS raises antitrust concerns because the participating providers may be seen as competitors banding together to set prices jointly for healthcare services. Therefore, to minimize their antitrust exposure, providers that are considering this model should be careful to structure the IDS in accordance with the relevant Federal antitrust laws (i.e., Section 1 of the Sherman Act), taking into account the Federal antitrust agencies' various guidelines and enforcement policies.

Antitrust Laws↗

Establishing physician networks within evolving antitrust guidelines.

Rapid changes in health care are being driven by the growth of managed care. Health plans have become more aggressive in negotiating with physicians, and providers have increasingly chosen to establish networks in response. Because these provider networks frequently represent horizontal forms of integration between competitors, antitrust issues have become increasingly important. This article addresses current antitrust law as it relates to physician networks. In particular, it reviews the most recent statements of antitrust enforcement policy of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission concerning physician networks. Procompetitive activities by physician networks are central to the latest rulings.

Antitrust Laws↗

An analysis of physician antitrust exemption legislation: adjusting the balance of power.

Current antitrust law restricts physicians from joining together to collectively negotiate. However, such activities may be approved by state laws under the so-called state action immunity doctrine and by federal legislation under an explicit antitrust exemption. In 1999, Texas became the first state to pass physician antitrust exemption legislation allowing physicians, under certain defined circumstances, to collectively negotiate fees with health plans. Last year, similar legislation was introduced in the US Congress, in 18 state legislatures, and in the District of Columbia. This legislation was passed only in the District of Columbia where its implementation was blocked by the city's financial control board. Nonetheless, legislation permitting physicians to collectively negotiate fees with managed care plans has been introduced in 10 state legislatures this year, and there is continued interest in introducing similar legislation in the US Congress. This analysis examines the basic features of this legislation and its potential impact on the balance of power between physicians and managed care plans.

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↗

Increasing consolidation in healthcare markets: what are the antitrust policy implications?

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the implications of the rapid transformation of the healthcare financing and delivery system for competition, social welfare, and antitrust policy. PRINCIPAL FINDING: Horizontal and vertical consolidations can enhance efficiency but can also be anticompetitive in markets characterized by entry barriers. RECOMMENDATION: Active enforcement of the antitrust laws is essential to ensure that competition in healthcare markets will lead to procompetitive, rather than anticompetitive effects. However, healthcare antitrust enforcement policy must be flexible enough to allow efficient new forms of organization and practice to emerge.

Antitrust Laws↗

Quality improvement act gets first antitrust test.

In an opinion issued on February 20, 1990, the Federal District Court for the Central District of California summarily dismissed the claim of Dr. George M. Austin that Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital and five individual physicians conspired to suspend his hospital privileges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The decision was based on the court's determination that the actions of the hospital and defendant physicians were immune from federal antitrust liability under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986. The case is the first test of the Act in connection with a staff privileges claim under the antitrust laws and is the first affirmance of the immunity protections of the Act.

Antitrust Laws↗

Understanding antitrust: focus on the relevant market.

The increase in the past five years of antitrust cases involving the healthcare industry has left few healthcare organizations untouched. Even if a provider has not been part of actual antitrust litigation or involved in a government investigation, the courts' antitrust decisions of the past several years have molded and will continue to affect competitive strategies and operational plans at all levels of the industry. Antitrust is becoming a necessary, if sometimes distasteful, fact of competitive life. In this first of a five-part series of articles on antitrust issues in health care, a framework for understanding the antitrust laws and the increasing number of antitrust suits brought by, against, and between providers is developed. Further articles will feature an expanded discussion of several topics including: antitrust guidelines on medical staff privileges for hospital decision makers; physician-hospital competition and antitrust considerations; provider antitrust suits against third-party payers; and a discussion of whether the antitrust risks in forming and operating preferred provider organizations has been overcome.

Economic Competition↗

Legal approaches to the restraint of trade of nurse practitioners: disparate reimbursement patterns.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) can face, and have faced, several challenges in the health care environment. As with the denial of hospital admitting or staff privileges, the granting of inequitable reimbursement levels by state administrative bodies, physicians, insurers, and other members of the health care community may limit NP practice. Several strategies are discussed that will demonstrate how nurse practitioners can use legal and administrative mechanisms (e.g., antitrust laws) to eliminate restraints of trade and assure the availability of more equitable direct reimbursement patterns.

Antitrust Laws↗

Changing antitrust prospects for hospital mergers.

The courts recently decided in favor of plans in three cities to merge hospitals, despite government arguments that such mergers would be anticompetitive. Is this a harbinger of a change in prospects for merger? Lawyers and consultants say that final court disposition of current appeals could determine future government action to enforce the antitrust laws. In the meantime, they offer seven tips for optimizing chances of winning approval of a merger.

Antitrust Laws↗

Antitrust and affiliations among healthcare providers: the need for a level playing field.

Under pressure to remain competitive in the rapidly changing healthcare industry, policy leaders and healthcare administrators face the challenge of resolving antitrust matters arising from the creation of innovative healthcare provider affiliations. Although guidance from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is available, development of new affiliations is hindered due to contradictory rulings and ambiguous guidelines. Provider associations are further disadvantaged by a federal act granting insurance companies antitrust exemption, which enables insurance companies to affiliate more easily. Current antitrust regulations create unequal market powers, resulting in the development of inefficient systems. Softening antitrust laws in favor of provider-sponsored healthcare affiliations will provide for the flexibility necessary for effective healthcare reform.

Antitrust Laws↗

Evaluating antitrust risk in joint provider negotiations with payors.

Health care providers who combine to jointly negotiate contracts with third party payors risk violating the antitrust laws and incurring liability. This article describes the types of scrutiny to which joint activities are subject and outlines a number of factors that should be considered in analyzing the degree of antitrust risk involved in any joint provider arrangement.

Antitrust Laws↗

Legal issues in medical practice acquisitions.

As the changing healthcare delivery environment places increased emphasis on primary care, many healthcare organizations are striving to broaden their base of primary care physicians. One method that organizations are using to accomplish this goal is acquisition of medical practices. Practice acquisitions require careful planning to address the complex legal issues involved, including possible violations of antikickback, self-referral, and antitrust laws. This article offers an overview of the acquisition process and a checklist of relevant legal issues.

Antitrust Laws↗

A case of wrongful use of quality management. Summit Health, Ltd., v. Pinhas.

Summit Health, Ltd., v. Pinhas liberalized the jurisdiction of the Sherman Antitrust Act to include cases of intrastate hospital credentialing. The U.S. Supreme Court decision eased the requirements for plaintiffs to sue when they perceived that health care organizations were acting as monopolies. The court removed the defense that a plaintiff had to prove that the decision of a health care organization affected interstate commerce for the case to be heard in court. Important as the case is in antitrust law, however, greater lessons can be gained by health care organizations from analyzing the events that led to the lawsuit.

Antitrust Laws↗

Antitrust exemption: are health providers crying wolf?

Demands by health providers for relief from federal antitrust law have reached a new high as they examine the likely impact of managed competition on the way they do business. Indeed, the American Medical Association endorsed managed competition on the condition that doctors get an antitrust exemption; the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association recently said that drug makers needed to discuss prices before they could hold back increases. But the Federal Trade Commission, an independent agency, has shown no signs of revising its antitrust measures to reflect the enormous changes that lie before the health industry.

American Hospital Association↗

Rough ride.

Anne K. Bingaman, the Justice Department's top trustbuster, has pledged vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws. But lack of money, hostile judges and skepticism elsewhere in the Administration could make it hard for her to deliver.

Antitrust Laws↗

Physicians, unions, and antitrust.

The increasing consolidation of our healthcare delivery systems and the concomitant push for perceived efficiencies, speed, and profits has laid the foundation for a renewed interest in unionization by many physicians. This Article analyzes the barriers to such unionization that are posed by the antitrust laws, and provides an analysis of how to proceed with unionization without violating those laws. The Article also analyzes the current status of physician ability to unionize, and surveys the present status of physician unions.

Antitrust Laws↗

The Federal Trade Commission and physician practice.

Obtaining the best possible managed care contracts is important to physicians. Banding together with other practices to obtain more favorable payment could seem a legitimate business prac tice. Physicians competing in the same specialty in a market area must be acutely aware of federal antitrust rules to avoid improper collusion. The Federal Trade Commission is reviewing collaborative activities and seeking settlement agreements with physician organizations it determines have violated antitrust laws and regulations. Physicians and administrators should be aware of these actions, know what triggers a review, and understand what collaborative activities they may participate in to further their business interests. This article reviews Federal Trade Commission application of federal antitrust rules and recent advisory opinions, and their implications for practice.

Antitrust Laws↗