- Discrimination against interstate commerce
- Excessive burden on
Should the Antitrust Division, the FTC, and State Attorneys General Formally Allocate the Market for Antitrust Enforcement?
The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and state attorneys general, as any antitrust aficionado knows, have dramatically improved the level of communication, cooperation, and coordination among themselves in the investigation and prosecution of antitrust violations during the past decade.1 Two important examples of such coordination are the 1998 Protocol for Coordination in Merger Investigations Between the Federal
Read More Should the Antitrust Division, the FTC, and State Attorneys General Formally Allocate the Market for Antitrust Enforcement?Recent Developments Concerning the Non-Profit Institutions Act
Non-profit hospitals and other non-profit or charitable health care organizations may be able to claim a limited exemption from the antitrust laws for the purchase and resale of supplies for their own use under the Non-Profit Institutions Act (15 U.S.C. § 13c.).
In general, the Robinson-Patman Act prohibits the contemporaneous sale in interstate commerce of commodities of like grade and quality for use or resale within
Read More Recent Developments Concerning the Non-Profit Institutions ActThe Revised Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care May Substantially Advance the Creation of New Provider Networks
Introduction
The Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) released a revised version of their “Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care” (“Guidelines”) on August 28, 1996. While all nine Statements contained in the Guidelines were reissued, only Statement 8 on physician network joint ventures and Statement 9 on multiprovider networks were revised. A seemingly
Read More The Revised Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care May Substantially Advance the Creation of New Provider NetworksNew Guidelines Try to Reverse Perceived “Chilling Effect’ on Network Development
While all nine statements in the Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care were re-issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Aug. 28, only Statement 8 on physician network joint ventures and Statement 9 on multiprovider networks were actually revised.
The revisions to Statements 8 and 9 am intended to give health care providers greater flexibility in
Read More New Guidelines Try to Reverse Perceived “Chilling Effect’ on Network DevelopmentCoordinated State Antitrust Enforcement: Federalism in the ’90s
The communications industry is experiencing an unprecedented wave of mergers and acquisitions. Merging entities and their counsel are, of course, resigned to the fact that federal regulatory and antitrust enforcement agencies, as well as state public service commissions, must be consulted before most are finalized. It can, however, be unsettling, when the same merger that is being scrutinized by the “feds” also draws the attention
Read More Coordinated State Antitrust Enforcement: Federalism in the ’90sThe Impact of the New Antitrust Guidelines on Licensing
BACKGROUND DISCUSSION
The Antitrust Guidelines for Intellectual Property (hereinafter “IP”) Licensing (hereinafter “the Guidelines”), issued jointly by the Justice Department and the FTC (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Agencies”) on April 6, 1995, will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the drafting, negotiation, and subsequent scrutiny, by the government and private citizens, of domestic licensing arrangements, as well as multinational licenses having an impact
Read More The Impact of the New Antitrust Guidelines on LicensingEnforcement by Antitrust Division Suggests New Attitude Toward Most-Favored National Clauses
During the past twenty years, most-favored-nation (MFN) clauses have proliferated in contracts between third-party payers and health care providers throughout the country. These clauses, in their various forms, require the provider of health care services to guarantee to the third-party payer that the provider will charge to that payer the provider’s very lowest prices for any services rendered.2 While at first blush, such price
Read More Enforcement by Antitrust Division Suggests New Attitude Toward Most-Favored National Clauses