Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:30:32.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antitrust Law and Exclusive Contracts: Obstacles to Patients' Benefits?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Robert E. Nord
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Antitrust challenges to agreements between hospitals and physicians who provide patient services have become one of the most common types of antitrust litigation in the past few years. Two recent decisions by different circuit courts of appeal highlight the legal and medical principles on which such disputes will be decided.

In August 1982, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction entered in favor of an individual anes-thesiologist who had complained that after an anesthesia group terminated her employment, the hospital wrongfully refused to allow her to continue to serve patients. The Seventh Circuit, in Dos Santos v. Columbus-Cuneo- Cabrini Medical Center, expressed serious doubt whether under antitrust analysis, a single hospital could ever be treated as a distinct market for the purchase and sale of health care services. The court remanded the case to the federal district court, where it is still pending.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 1983 , pp. 64 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1983

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

Dos Santos v. Columbus-Cuneo-Cabrini Medical Center, 684 F.2d 1346 (7th Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
Hyde v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. #2, 686 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. granted, 51 U.S.L.W. 3645 (March 7, 1983).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. §1, 2 (1976); Ill. Rev. Stat. c. 38 §§60-3(1), 60-3(2) (1977).Google Scholar
Dos Santos, supra note 1, at 1348.Google Scholar
Id. at 1349.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 84 (1974).Google Scholar
Dos Santos, supra note 1, at 1350.Google Scholar
Id. at 1351.Google Scholar
Id. at 1352, citing Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 1320 (1961).Google Scholar
Dos Santos, supra note 1. at 1353.Google Scholar
513 F. Supp. 532 (E.D. La. 1981), rev'd, 686 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
521 F. Supp. 841 (W.D. Pa. 1981), aff'd mem. 688 F.2d 824 (3rd Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
Dos Santos, supra note 1, at 1353.Google Scholar
United States v. American Soc'y of Anesthesiologists, 473 F. Supp. 147 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).Google Scholar
Dos Santos, supra note 1, at 1354 n.17, quoting id. at 160.Google Scholar
Santos, Dos, supra note 1, at 1354.Google Scholar
Hyde v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. #2, 686 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
Id. at 287–88.Google Scholar
Id. at 293. See United States Steel Corporation v. Fortner Enterprises, 429 U.S. 610 (1977); 15 U.S.C. §14 (1976) (statutory prohibition of the tying of goods).Google Scholar
Id. at 289.Google Scholar
513 F. Supp. 523, 542-43 (E.D. La. 1981).Google Scholar
421 U.S. 773 (1975).Google Scholar
Hyde, , supra note 20, at 290.Google Scholar
Id. at 291–92.Google Scholar
Id. at 292.Google Scholar
102 S. Ct. 2466 (1982).Google Scholar
429 U.S. 610 (1977).Google Scholar
51 U.S.L.W. 3511 (1982).Google Scholar
Amicus Brief of the United States, Hyde v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. # 2, at 5.Google Scholar
Id. at 5–6.Google Scholar
Id. at 7–14.Google Scholar
Id. at 16.Google Scholar
Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. #2 v. Hyde, , 51 U.S.L.W. 3645 (March 7, 1983).Google Scholar
Hyde, , supra note 20, at 290.Google Scholar
Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320 (1961).Google Scholar
Petition for Cert., Hyde v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. #2, 51 U.S.L.W. 3511 (1982).Google Scholar
American Medical Association, Center for Health Policy Research, Socioeconomic Monitoring System Report (February 1982).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
American Medical News, December 17, 1982, p. 1.Google Scholar
American Medical Association, Physician Distribution and Medical Licensure in the United States 1975 (AMA, Chicago) (1976); American Medical Association, Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the United States (AMA, Chicago) (1981).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
American Hospital Association, Guide to the Health Care Field (AHA, Chicago) (1981) at Table 1.Google Scholar
United States Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States (U.S. Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D.C.) (1981).Google Scholar
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-248, 96 Stat. 324 (September 3, 1982).Google Scholar
47 Fed. Reg. 43,578–593 (October 1, 1982).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Holston v. Resurrection Hosp., 510 N.E.2d 969 (Ill. App. 1980); Grene v. Mt. Clemens General Hosp., 273 N.W.2d 429 (Mich. 1978); Darling v. Charleston Memorial Hosp., 211 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. 1965).Google Scholar
In re American Soc'y of Anesthesiologists, FTC File # 781 0024 (October 8, 1978).Google Scholar
See In re American Society of Anesthesiologists, 93 F.T.C. 101 (1979); Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) para. 21, 475 (1979) (FTC comment on consent decree).Google Scholar
692 F.2d 1083 (7th Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
Id. at 1095.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Robinson v. Magovern, 521 F. Supp. 842, 925 (W.D. Pa. 1981).Google Scholar