A Competition Perspective on Physician Non-compete Agreements.

Physician non-compete agreements may have significant competitive implications, and effects on both providers and patients, but they are treated variously under the law on a state-by-state basis. Reviewing the relevant law and the economic literature cannot identify with confidence the net effects of such agreements on either physicians or health care delivery with any generality. In addition to identifying future research projects to inform policy, it is argued that the antitrust "rule of reason" provides a useful and established framework with which to evaluate such agreements in specific health care markets and, potentially, to address those agreements most likely to do significant damage to health care competition and consumers.

[Models for collaboration]. / Kooperationsmodelle.

In the future, a need-base health care system should be ensured by cooperation between the service providers. To promote this, the current legal framework is being adjusted to include the introduction of "day treatment at hospitals", distribution of "service groups" to individual clinics, and the establishment of integrated control centers and emergency centers. Healthcare providers are to be motivated to collaborate via financial support, and also the utilization of synergistic effects and the need of training of future professionals. However, the pursuit of collaboration is limited by professional law, regulations regarding anti-corruption, and the patients' interest in freedom of choice, up to competition law to antitrust law. Collaborations between hospitals and contracted physicians/practices are based on the specifications of the Hospital Remuneration Act (collaboration on a fee basis or in an employment relationship) and the German Social Code (contractual forms of collaboration for emergency services, medical care centers, before/after in-patient treatment, outpatient surgery, specialized medical care on outpatient basis, cooperating with attending physicians, and special healthcare services), as well as being employed at the hospital. Due to their precarious situation, hospitals increasingly cooperate with each other through strategic alliances, up to mergers. To make these collaborations successful, certain principles need to be considered. These concepts entail risks and require trust and a well-balanced relationship between costs and benefits for all partners. The bold path of fair collaborations, focusing on high-quality and efficient patient care, can represent a disruptive innovation for addressing our challenges in urology and healthcare in general.

Antitrust Order Aimed at Equalizing MCED Field.

The FTC ruled on April 3 that Illumina must divest itself of the cancer diagnostics firm Grail, a decision designed to promote competition in the multi-cancer early detection market by providing equal access to essential DNA sequencing technology.

Hospital Consolidation: The Rise of Geographically Distant Mergers.

This Viewpoint discusses how and why cross-market hospital mergers are different than prototypical within-market mergers in their effects on patients and communities, why the trend may be accelerating, and future policy and research directions.

The Settlement of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation: Creating a New Potential Catalyst for Health Insurance Industry Restructuring.

Importance: The recent settlement of the class action antitrust lawsuit against the Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) Association and 34 plans will bring substantial change to insurance markets in the US; however, not enough is known about the implications for insurance markets and health policy. Objective: To detail the nature of the antitrust claims against the BCBS plans and their Association, and the required changes in their business practices that are a critical part of the settlement. Evidence Review: This analysis relies on the court documents that will set the new parameters under which BCBS plans must operate. Findings: For many of the past 70 years, BCBS plans have enjoyed substantial market power in the state in which each operates. Other BCBS plans were not allowed to compete against other "Blues" plans, and any corporation resident in a plan's territory was allowed to deal solely with the local plan if the corporation sought BCBS insurance for its employees. The settlement recognizes that these restrictions reduced competition; therefore, they are not allowed under federal antitrust laws going forward. The BCBS Association also will have less control over mergers and acquisitions by individual BCBS plans. Finally, the BCBS plans and the Association must pay $2.67 billion in damages to clients. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that BCBS plans will face competition from their fellow plans for business, and they will be allowed to diversify the services they provide. These changes will be likely to threaten the smaller BCBS plans and could bring consolidation to the health insurance industry. These changes should also promote sharper efforts toward health care cost management, with broad implications for other parts of the health insurance industry, and for hospitals and other health care services.

Orthopaedic Surgery Training in North Carolina: The Impact of The Flexner Report and The Sherman Antitrust Act.

The current medical schools and orthopaedic residency programs in the state of North Carolina have evolved based upon geopolitical, economic events, historical reports and regulations. The American Medical Association Committee on Medical Education, the Flexner Report and the Sherman Antitrust Act and their recommendations were codified by state regulatory agencies and state law. These important pressures created the programs as they are known today. The result was the forced closure of most early medical institutions in the state of North Carolina in the early 1900s. Industrial resource consolidation by monopolies was the motivation for the Sherman antitrust act. Enforced by Theodore Roosevelt, this legislation disbanded major monopolies and encouraged philanthropy. This manuscript details the evolution of modern medical education and highlights the impact of historical social, economic and political events on the development of Duke, Wake Forest, University of North Carolina and Charlotte/ Atrium Health orthopedic programs in North Carolina. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 31(3):139-143, 2022).

Straight Teeth and Misaligned Interests: Courtrooms Are Crowded with SmileDirectClub Litigation.

SmileDirectClub markets, manufactures, and delivers clear plastic dental aligners directly to the consumer: no dental office necessary. This well-known business strategy-cut costs by cutting out the middleman-has in several instances caught the attention of state dental regulators. While the dental boards consider some of SmileDirectClub's practices to be violative of state dental practice law, the corporation has fought back in federal court, charging dental regulators with antitrust violations and with denying SmileDirectClub its constitutional rights.The Supreme Court, as noted by SmileDirectClub, has insisted that a self-regulating state professional board is not itself the state, so a board's actions might be subject to federal antitrust law. In the SmileDirectClub cases, however, state regulators have acted as required by state legislatures and as expressed in state dental practice acts. The boards' activities here are therefore cloaked in the states' immunity to antitrust litigation and should be treated deferentially by federal courts. Furthermore, judicial review of the substance of every regulation to which SmileDirectClub objects is inappropriate under principles of constitutional law. In the interest of public safety, courts should permit state dental regulators to fulfill their mandates and ensure that all dental providers comply with state health regulations.

States' Merger Review Authority Is Associated With States Challenging Hospital Mergers, But Prices Continue To Increase.

States can challenge proposed hospital mergers by using antitrust laws to prevent anticompetitive harms. This observational study examined additional state laws-principally charitable trust, nonprofit corporation, health and safety, and certificate-of-need laws-that can serve as complements and substitutes for antitrust laws by empowering states to be notified of, review, and challenge proposed hospital mergers through administrative processes. During the period 2010-19, 862 hospital mergers were proposed, but only forty-two (4.9 percent) were challenged by states, including thirty-five by states without federal involvement, of which twenty-five (71.4 percent) originated in the eight states with the most robust merger review authority. The twenty-five challenges resulted in two mergers being blocked; three being abandoned; and twenty being approved with conditions, including seven with competitive-impact conditions. Hospital market concentration and prices increased at similar rates in these eight states versus other states, potentially because most challenges allowed mergers to proceed with conditions that did not adequately address competitive concerns. Although these findings do not reveal an optimal state framework, elements of advanced state merger review authority may have the potential to improve poorly functioning hospital markets.

Excessive pricing in the pharmaceutical industry: adding another string to the bow of EU competition law.

The paper addresses the issue of excessive price abuse under Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), by drawing inspiration from a recent stream of cases (developed first at the national and then at the EU level) involving pharmaceutical companies marketing off-patent drugs. In particular, the two 'most advanced' cases are analysed: Aspen in Italy and Pfizer/Flynn in the United Kingdom. This new-found attention towards exploitative practices in the form of excessive and unfair pricing by dominant undertakings that have traditionally been subject to a cautious antitrust scrutiny seems worth exploring for a number of reasons, as illustrated in the paper. Ultimately, it is argued that this further 'interference' of competition law into the realms of regulation may be actually justified, albeit subject to precise conditions for enforcement, and may pursue policy objectives in the wider context of EU health law.

Antitrust analysis with upward pricing pressure and cost efficiencies.

We investigate the accuracy of UPP as a tool in antitrust analysis when there are cost efficiencies from a horizontal merger. We include merger-specific cost efficiencies in a tractable manner in the model and extend the standard UPP formulation to account for these efficiencies. The efficacy of the new UPP formulations is analyzed using Monte Carlo simulation of 40,000 mergers (8 scenarios, 5,000 mergers in each scenario). We find that the new UPP formulations yield substantial gains in prediction of post-merger prices, and there are substantial gains in merger screening accuracy as well. Moreover, the new UPP formulations outperform the standard UPP formulation at higher thresholds for all the standard cases in the paper. The results are robust to several additional analyses. The results show that including cost efficiencies in a manner guided by the theoretical model may yield substantial improvements in accuracy of UPP as a tool in antitrust analysis.

Higher Drug Prices from Anticompetitive Conduct: Three Case Studies.

U.S. consumers pay high drug prices. Brand-name drug companies claim that these prices are justified by pathbreaking research and development. But, sometimes the prices result from anticompetitive conduct. This article offers three case studies of how such behavior can increase price based on wakefulness drug Provigil, the allergic-reaction-treating EpiPen, and infection-treating Daraprim. The article contends that behavior that makes no sense other than by harming a competitor, that undercuts a regulatory regime, or that involves collusive conduct should not be protected. In targeting this behavior, antitrust scrutiny promises to lower drug prices.