Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-tmfhh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-05T20:11:03.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antitrust and Health Planning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

W. Thomas Berriman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The goals of the federal and state antitrust laws and of the federal and state health planning laws often appear to be in conflict. The health planning laws encourage cooperation among providers of health care services and the sharing of facilities and services, based upon the premise that competition in the health care field has not succeeded in containing costs or adequately distributing resources. Generally, it can be said that the health planning laws, by establishing controls to prevent the unnecessary duplication of services, protect service monopolies. In contrast, antitrust laws are designed to prevent the establishment of monopolies which are able to control the supply of services. The antitrust laws are intended to promote a vigorous and competitive economy, in which businesses have a full opportunity to compete on the basis of price, quality and service. As a result of this conflict, those involved in health planning have become concerned about the legal environment in which they act.

Type
Article
Information
Medicolegal News , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , June 1981 , pp. 4 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §300k et seq. (Pub. L. 93-641), as amended by Pub. L. 96-79 [hereinafter National Health Planning Act].Google Scholar
S.Rep. 96-96, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in (1979) 2 U.S. Code, Cong. & Ad. News 1306-1468, at 1310.Google Scholar
H.R. Rep. No. 190 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 51.Google Scholar
1979 Health Planning Amendments, §103(b) adding §1502(b), 42 U.S.C. §300k-2(b)(1).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §300k-2(b)(2).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §300k-2(b)(3).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §300l-1(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. §§1, 2.Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. §18.Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. §45.Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. §15.Google Scholar
Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. Cohen, 234 F. Supp. 80 (D.C. Pa. 1964).Google Scholar
United States v. American Medical Ass'n, 28 F. Supp. 752 (D.C. D.C. 1939), rev'd on other grounds, 110 F.2d 703, cert. denied, 308 U.S. 599 (1939).Google Scholar
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975).Google Scholar
Id. at 786–88.Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. §1.Google Scholar
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, supra note 14.Google Scholar
Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738 (1976).Google Scholar
Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Mid-Cal Aluminum, Inc., 100 S.Ct. 937 (1980).Google Scholar
City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U.S. 389 (1978).Google Scholar
City of Fairfax v. Fairfax Hosp. Ass'n, 562 F.2d 280 (4th Cir. 1977), cert. granted, vacated and remanded, 435 U.S. 992 (1978).Google Scholar
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961); United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965).Google Scholar
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972).Google Scholar
McCarran-Ferguson Insurance Regulation Act, 15 U.S.C. §1011-1015, at 1012.Google Scholar
Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205 (1979).Google Scholar
See also Virginia Academy of Clinical Psychologists v. Blue Shield of Virginia, 624 F.2d 476 (4th Cir. 1980), and St. Bernard Hosp. v. Hospital Ass'n of New Orleans, Inc., 618 F.2d 1140 (5th Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
Gordon v. New York Stock Ex-change, 422 U.S. 659 (1975).Google Scholar
For a discussion of this theory, see footnote 40 infra and accompanying text.Google Scholar
Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Soc'y. 643 F.2d 553 (9th Cir. 1980), rehearing denied, June 12, 1980, cert. granted, 49 U.S.L.W. 3663 (March 10, 1981).Google Scholar
Program Policy Notice #80-21, May 23, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legal Briefing Memo #6, December 2, 1980, Western Center for Health Planning.Google Scholar
Health Planning Newsletter, No. 15, November 1980, at 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 4.Google Scholar
Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., ___ F. Supp. ___ (E.D.N.C. 1980) (trial on remand from reversal of dismissal, 425 U.S. 738 (1976)).Google Scholar
Huron Valley Hosp. v. City of Pontiac, 466 F. Supp. 1301 (E.D. Mich. 1979).Google Scholar
Id. at 1311, 1312.Google Scholar
Id. at 1312-1315.Google Scholar
Id. at 1312.Google Scholar
National Gerimedical Hosp. and Gerontology Center v. Blue Cross of Kansas City, 479 F. Supp. 1012 (W.D. Mo. 1979), aff'd. 628 F.2d 1050 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. granted, 49 U.S.L.W. 3531 (January 27, 1981).Google Scholar
Id., 479 F. Supp. at 1021.Google Scholar
Id. at 1016-1019, citing Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co., supra note 26.Google Scholar
National Gerimedical Hosp. and Gerontology Center v. Blue Cross of Kansas City, supra note 40, 628 F.2d at 1054.Google Scholar
Id. at 1057.Google Scholar
Id. at 1053.Google Scholar
Legal Briefing Memo #5, September 3, 1980, Western Center for Health Planning.Google Scholar
Today in Health Planning 111(3): 1 (January 16, 1981). A recently reported decision of the federal District Court in Michigan is in accord with Huron Valley and National Gerimedical. In Save Our Samaritan v. Bay Medical Center and Bay City Samaritan Hosp., the court dismissed claims of federal antitrust violations in connection with a planned merger of facilities which was reviewed by the HSA and given a CON by the state. The court found that Congress intended an “implied repeal” of the antitrust laws when it enacted the National Health Planning Act. In support of this proposition, the court cited language in the Act authorizing HSAs and state agencies to make appropriate allocations of inpatient and other institutional health services, because of the failure of the competitive market to allocate those services satisfactorily.Google Scholar
Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Soc'y, supra note 30.Google Scholar