1 Drake, & Kozak, , A Primer on Antitrust and Hospital Regulations, 3 J. Health Pol., Pol'y & L. 328, 342 n.1 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 For a more extensive view of Havighurst's ideas as expressed in the Journal, see Havighurst, , Health Care Cost-Containment Regalation: Prospects and an Alternative, 3 Am. J. L. & Med. 309(1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Havighurst, , More on Regulation: A Reply to Stephen Weiner, 4 Am. J. L. & Med. 243 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Havighurst, , Professional Restraints on Innovation in Health Care Financing, 1978 Duke L.J. 303 (1978).Google Scholar

4 Id. at 373-74.

5 Id. at 387.

6 Blumstein, & Calvani, , State Action as a Shield and a Sword in a Medical Services Antitrust Context: Parker v. Brown in Constitutional Perspective, 1978 Duke L.J. 389, 394 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 317 U.S. 341 (1943).

8 Blumstein & Calvani, supra note 6, at 400.

9 426 U.S. 833 (1976).

10 Blumstein & Calvani, supra note 6, at 432.

11 Id. at 436.

12 Grad, , The Antitrust Laws and Professional Discipline in Medicine, 1978 Duke L.J. 443 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 F. Grad & N. Marti, Legislative Drafting Research Fund of Columbia University, Study of Medical Disciplinary Procedures (final report under contract no. PHS 282-76-0452-65, submitted Feb. 16, 1978) (revised version awaiting publication).

14 See notes 6-7 supra and accompanying text.

15 In Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961), the Supreme Court applied first amendment considerations to exempt from the Sherman Act the collective efforts of an association of railroads to lobby Congress for preferential rates. In UMW v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965), the Court held that joint efforts by a labor union and by employers to lobby the Secretary of Labor were exempt from the Sherman Act on similar grounds. Together, the cases are cited for the proposition that collective political action is not subject to antitrust laws.

16 Until Goldfarb, it was presumed by many that the “learned professions” were exempt from the Sherman Act, which limits itself to “trade or commerce.” Goldfarb, however, stated that the learned professions were not necessarily exempt from the Sherman Act and held that a schedule of minimum fees that had been adopted by a county bar association restrained competition in violation of the Act. Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975).

17 Grad, supra note 12, at 443.

18 Id. at 486.

19 Kissam, , Health Maintenance Organizations and the Role of Antitrust Law, 1978 Duke L.J. 487 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 15 U.S.C. § 1 (1976).

21 Kissam, supra note 19, at 508.

22 See note 15 supra and accompanying text.

23 Kissam, supra note 19, at 513.

24 15 U.S.C. § 13 (1976).

25 Kissam, supra note 19, at 520.

26 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015(1976).

27 Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, an antitrust proceeding can be stayed so that a regulatory agency can assess facts and issues within the agency's special competence. Under the implied immunity doctrine, a regulated activity that is necessary to promote the objectives of the regulatory statute is exempt from antitrust law.

28 Canby, & Gellhorn, , Physician Advertising: The First Amendment and the Sherman Act, 1978 Duke L.J. 543 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

30 Canby & Gellhorn, supra note 28, at 583.

31 Id. at 580.

32 Id. at 583.

33 Weller, , The McCarran-Ferguson Act's Antitrust Exemption for Insurance: Language, History and Policy, 1978 Duke L.J. 587 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 See note 26 supra and accompanying text.

35 Weller, supra note 33, at 640.

36 Id.

37 Weller, supra note 33, at 641.

38 Kallstrom, , Health Care Cost Control by Third Party Payors: Fee Schedules and the Sherman Act, 1978 Duke L.J. 645 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Id. at 647.

40 Note, Physician Influence: Applying the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine to the Medical Profession, 1978 Duke L.J. 701 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Id.

42 Note, Controlling Health Care Costs Though Commercial Insurance Companies, 1978 Duke L.J. 728 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Gauvey, , Leviton, , Shuger, , & Sykes, , Informed and Substitute Consent to Health Care Procedures: A Proposal for State Legislation, 15 Harv. J. Legis. 431 (1978).Google Scholar

44 Id. at 461.

45 Note, Regulating Medical Services and the Prospects for Medical Goods, 15 Harv. J. Legis. 497 (1978).Google Scholar

46 Note, Pricing Bad Blood: Reassessing Liability for Post-Transfusion Hepatitis, 15 Harv. J. Legis. 557 (1978).Google Scholar

47 Note, , Hospital Cost Control: Single-Edged Initiatives for a Two-Sided Problem, 15 Harv. J. Legis. 603 (1978).Google Scholar

48 Lion, , Book Review, 15 Harv. J. Legis. 669 (1978).Google Scholar

49 Gough, , Foreword, 51 Temple L.Q. 155 (1978).Google Scholar

50 Berkman, , Self-Insurance of Hospital Malpractice Liability: A Dissection of Pennsylvania Act III and State and Federal Regulations, 51 Temple L.Q. 158 (1978).Google Scholar

51 Shay, , Pennsylvania Law of Hospital Supervision: Its Origin and Present Meaning, 51 Temple L.Q. 187 (1978).Google Scholar

52 Gosfield, , Medical Necessity in Medicare and Medicaid: The Implications of Professional Standards Review Organizations, 51 Temple L.Q. 229 (1978).Google Scholar

53 Id. at 280.

54 Cooper, , The Physician's Dilemma: Protection of the Patient's Right to Privacy, 22 St. Louis L.J. 397 (1978).Google Scholar

55 Cooper mistakenly says that the famous Brandeis and Warren article, The Right to Privacy, spoke of a constitutional right to privacy, id. at 400; the article actually proposed a cause of action in tort.

56 Blum, , Corporate Liability for In-House Medical Malpractice, 22 St. Louis L.J. 433 (1978).Google Scholar

57 Id. at 451.

58 Slawkowski, , Do the Courts Understand the Realities of Hospital Practices?, 22 St. Louis L.J. 452 (1978).Google Scholar

59 Shapiro,Medical Malpractice: History, Diagnosis and Prognosis, 22 St. Louis L.J. 469 (1978).Google Scholar

60 Horty, & Mulholland, , The Legal Status of the Hospital Medical Staff, 22 St. Louis L.J. 485 (1978).Google Scholar

61 138 N.J. Super. 302, 350 A.2d 534 (1975).

62 Mueller, & Phoenix, , A Dilemma for the Legal and Medical Professions: Euthanasia and the Defective Newborn, 22 St. Louis L.J. 501 (1978).Google Scholar

63 Id. at 517.

64 Freiberg, , The Song is Ended But the Malady Lingers On: Legal Regulation of Psychotherapy, 22 St. Louis L.J. 519 (1978).Google Scholar

65 Id. at 528.

66 Ball, , Book Review, 22 St. Louis L.J. 534 (1978).Google Scholar

67 Wolff, , Book Review, 22 St. Louis L.J. 541 (1978).Google Scholar

68 Spece, , Preserving the Right to Treatment: A Critical Assessment and Constructive Development of Constitutional Right to Treatment Theories, 20 Ariz. L. Rev. 1 (1978).Google Scholar

69 Id. at 4.

70 Task Panel on Legal and Ethical Issues, The President's Commission on Mental Health, Mental Health and Human Rights: Report of the Task Panel on Legal and Ethical Issues, 20 Ariz. L. Rev. 49 (1978).Google Scholar

71 Wexler, , The Waivability of Recommitment Hearings, 20 Ariz. L. Rev. 186 (1978).Google Scholar

72 Id. at 186.

73 Kaplan, , State Control of Deviant Behavior: A Critical Essay on Scull's Critique of Community Treatment and Deinstitutionalization, 20 Ariz. L. Rev. 189 (1978).Google Scholar

74 Id. at 189-90.

75 Id. at 216.

76 Note, , Constitutional Standards for Release of the Civilly Committed and Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity: A Strict Scrutiny Analysis, 20 Ariz. L. Rev. 233 (1978).Google Scholar

77 543 F.2d 178 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1063 (1977).