Title: Antitrust Law Made Dangerously Simple
1Antitrust Law Made Dangerously Simple
- GSRMC MEDICAL STAFF
- QUARTERLY MEETING
- April 8, 1999
- Robert J. Milligan
- GallagherKennedy
2People of the same trade seldom meet
together, even for merriment and diversion, but
the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the
public or some contrivance to raise
prices. Adam Smith
3The Basic Rules
- The Antitrust Laws Prohibit
- Conspiracies in restraint of trade
- Price fixing
- Group Boycotts
- Market Division
- Monopolization
4The Sherman Act
- Section One
- Every contract, combination ... or conspiracy in
restraint of trade is hereby declared to be
illegal. - It takes two to conspire
- Unreasonable restraint of trade
5The Sherman Act Humbug based on economic
ignorance and incompetence.
- Justice O.W. Holmes, The Holmes-Pollock
letters, page 163(Howe, ed. 1941)
6Antitrust Law in a Nutshell
7Three Tucson Dentists Guilty in Price Case
- Physicians convicted for conspiring to fix
co-payment fees paid by patients who were members
of prepaid dental plans - Potential penalties
- Up to three years imprisonment
- Fines up to 250,000/Double damages
8Collective Bargaining and Section One of the
Sherman Act
- Group Practice (Subject to monopoly constraints)
- Physician Networks Under the DOJ/FTC Policy
Statements - State Action Immunity
- National Labor Relations Act
9The DOJ/FTC Policy Statements
- Size limitations
- Exclusive 20
- Non-exclusive 30
- Operational Requirements
- Substantial Financial Risk
- Clinical Integration
- Messenger Model
- Some or All of the Above
10Policy Statements
- Substantial Financial Risk
- Capitation Contracts
- Withhold Arrangements
11Policy Statements
- Do Withhold Arrangements cause physicians in a
network to share substantial financial risk? - Who holds the withhold?
- How much is withheld?
- How are goals set?
- How/When are funds distributed?
- To whom are funds distributed?
-
12Policy Statements
- Messenger Model
- In the absence of sufficient risk sharing or
clinical integration - Physician networks can employ a messenger to
facilitate communication with payors
13Messenger Model
- Role of the Messenger
- Third party
- Obtains acceptable contract terms from providers
on an individual basis - Communicates information to payors
- Communicates offers to providers on an individual
basis - Providers accept or reject on an individual basis
14Messenger Model The Governments View
- If the messenger coordinates individual
providers responses to a particular
proposal,disseminates to members other providers
views or intentions, acts as an agent for
collective negotiation and agreement by the
providers or otherwise - serves to facilitate collusive behavior among
network participants,network participants will
run a serious antitrust risk - FTC Advisory Opinion
NNOSA, July 11,1995
15Messenger Model The FPD View
- The union would negotiate contracts for all
members using the messenger model. The idea is
that an organization representing all orthopaedic
surgeons would have bargaining leverage. Dr.
Connair - Remember that the Third Party Messenger Model
is only effective if everyone participates.
Dr. Newcomb - United States v. Federation of Physicians and
Dentists
16United States vs.Federation of Physicians and
Dentists
- Alleges a violation of the Sherman Act
- Seeks injunction against FPD or its
representatives acting as messenger - No damages claimed, so no treble damage potential
(Good news/Bad News)
17Who is right?
- My opinion If it is effective to negotiate
better contracts, it is illegal - Practical Consideration
- If the Department of Justice says it is illegal,
do you want to lead the charge? - If so, at least get indemnification
18(No Transcript)
19State Action Immunity
- Texas House Bill 3039An Act Relating to the
Regulation of Physician Collective Negotiation - Where a payor has substantial market power
(gt15) physicians may collectively negotiate - Fees Conversion Factors Discounts
Capitation Amounts and Other Terms
20So where does that leave us...