OCR Text |
Show size unless excluded parties would suffer a significant cost (competitive) disadvantage. Another significant development is the open invitation for proposed collaborators to submit their agreement for review and the commitment to return comments within 90 days. This is an unusual and apparently significant signal. Federal antitrust agencies implicitly recognize the frustration and costs that delayed and unanticipated intervention can cause. One is tempted to say that this invitation for business review casts the DOJ/FTC in the role of mentor, rather than cop. That is, it appears to signal a desire to offer guidance and suggestions rather than a desire to jump in, if after the fact some competitive harm has been suffered. As antitrust authorities gain experience with the health care industry, particularly with providers, enforcement efforts and attitudes increase in sophistication. Empirical evidence suggesting that collaboration among health care providers may actually reduce costs appears to have been taken seriously by antitrust officials. Rule of reason analysis requires that the special circumstances of the industry be considered when assessing the legality of a collaborative agreement. When a rule of reason is applied, goals of economic efficiency are more likely to be accepted. Providers should be willing to negotiate, and offer for comment, agreements which promise substantial resource savings. However, these agreements should be limited to those which are minimally necessary to ensure the resource savings. About the Author * Dan A. Fuller is Dee Smidl Research Scholar and a Professor of Economics at Weber State University. Debra L. Scammon is George Eccles Faculty Scholar and a Professor of Marketing in the David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Appreciation is expressed to the FHPF Center For Health Care Studies, University of Utah for assistance in information acquisition.________________________________ References Anders, George (1993), "Antitrust Probe of Hospital-Bed Market Puts Hillenbrand Unit Under Scrutiny, Wall Street Journal. October 18. B.N.A. Antitrust Trade Regulation Report (1993), "Special Supplement," Vol. 64. No. 1631 (September 16). Davidson, Joe (1993), 'FTC Employs Trust Laws Against Doctors' Ventures," Wall Street Journal, November 4, B6. Department of Justice (1994), "Justice Department Files Antitrust Complaint Against Utah Hospitals," Press Release, March 14. Ellert, James C. (1976), "Mergers, Antitrust Law Enforcement and Stockholder Returns." Journal of Finance 31(2), May, 715-32. Felsenthal, Edward (1993), "Recent Rulings May Threaten Health Plans," Wall Street Tournal. November 3. Flynn, John J. (1990), "Antitrust Policy and the Concept of A Competitive Process," New York Law School Law Review. Vol. 35, No. 4, 893-916. Federal Trade Commission (1994), "Federal Trade Commission Dismisses Charges in Utah, California Hospital Acquisition Case," FTC News. April 15, 1. Jarrell, Gregg A. and Michael Bradley (1985), "The Wealth Effects of Litigation by Targets: Do Interest Diverge in a Merger?" Journal of Law and Economics, 28(1), 151-77. Kleit, Andrew N. (1993), "Common Law, Statute Law, and the Theory of Legislative Choice: An Inquiry into the Goal of the Sherman Act", Economic Inquiry. 31(4), 647-62. 110 REVOLUTION, EVOLUTON, OR BUSINESS AS USUAL? |