Vertical restraints among hospitals, physicians and health insurers that raise rivals' costs. A case study of Reazin v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. and Ocean State Physicians Health Plan, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island

Two recent district court opinions consider whether affiliations among hospitals, doctors and health insurers--through contract or ownership--violate the antitrust laws. This Article applies a raising rivals' costs framework to the facts of those cases in order to assess whether the practices at issue were unreasonable.     

Examining exclusionary conduct of HMOs and PPOs: a case comment on Northwest Medical Laboratories v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oregon.

As the climate of the health care industry has changed to one of cost-containment and competition through the growth of HMOs and PPOs, health care providers have become the subjects of antitrust litigation. One such case, Northwest Medical Laboratories v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oregon, involved a medical laboratory and a radiology center who claimed that they were victims of an illegal group boycott after defendant's pre-paid health plan denied them preferred provider status. The Oregon Court of Appeals, using the traditional antitrust analysis applied to other industries for decades, failed to consider the intricacies that exist within the health care industry. This result led to an inaccurate market share computation and an inadequate rule of reason analysis. This Comment examines the shortcomings of the Northwest Medical opinion and argues that, in applying the antitrust laws to the health care industry, courts in future cases must recognize and respect the unique features of the business of providing health care.     

New York's Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 1934-1990: the complicated politics of nonprofit regulation.

The story of New York Blue Cross is one of complex interaction with state and federal regulators and also with hospitals, the medical profession, commercial insurers, and the public, who make up the regulatory environment. Negotiation, cooperation, and adaptation among parties whose goals and assumptions were partly parallel characterize the relationships. As we can see from New York Blue Cross's origins and its role in the development and administration of certificate-of-need legislation, Medicare, insurance practice and regulation, and hospital rate setting, this story does not represent the capture of government by a special interest, nor the gradual souring of a public interest organization, nor disinterested and distant government regulation.     

Comment on Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.: an antitrust analysis of Blue Shield's reimbursement schemes

In Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., the First Circuit held that Blue Shield's reimbursement practice known as the "ban on balance billing" did not constitute an unlawful restraint of trade in violation of the antitrust laws. Underlying the First Circuit's decision was deference to what it viewed as efforts by Blue Shield and by the Commonwealth to promote cost containment. This Comment argues that, to the contrary, under an appropriate analysis of antitrust law, the practices employed by Blue Shield did constitute unreasonable restraints of trade on the physicians' service industry in Massachusetts, given Blue Shield's market dominance in the Commonwealth. The Comment also argues that such inhibition of the competitive functioning of this industry is unwise, and that costs should instead be contained by effectuating the antitrust laws and encouraging the development of competitive forces within this industry.     

Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital – Parliamentary Intention and Damages Caused by Maladministration of a Contractual Dismissal Procedure

In Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKSC 58 [2012] 2 W.L.R. 55 the Supreme Court addressed the following question: is an employee, who can establish that (a) if a contractual disciplinary process had been correctly administered he would have been exonerated, and (b) thereafter employed until retirement, able to sue for loss of the earnings that he would have acquired until retirement? Three members of the Supreme Court held that such a remedy was not reconcilable with the enactment, originally in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, of a statutory unfair dismissals protection regime. It was Parliament's intention that an employee should not be able to outmanoeuvre the statute's compensation limitation rules by deploying a superior common law remedy. This note considers that reading of Parliament's intention.