Skip to main content
Log in

Exclusive arrangments in the hospital industry

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Medical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There have been numerous antitrust cases concerning exclusive hospitals privileges. The plaintiff often alleges both that he was foreclosed from the market and that an illegal tying agreement exists. This paper which draws heavily from the cases concludes both that the relevant market for hospital based physicians is national and that the impact on competition is minimal. The hospital frequently initiates the exclusive arrangement which suggests that efficiency is enhanced. Our analysis also shows that the rying claims are generally unpersuasive. However, exclusive arrangements on occasion may be a device to exclude competitors. Finally, economic criteria are developed to help determine the desirability of particular exclusive arrangements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lynk, W.J., Restraint of trade through hospital exclusive contracts: An economic appraisal of the legal theory.J. Health Polit. Policy Law 9(2):269–279, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  2. .Ibid. at 291.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dos Santos v. Columbus-Cuneo-Cabrini Medical Center, 684 F. 2d at 1354. (1982).

  4. Collins v. Associated Pathologists, Ltd., et al. reported in Commerce Clearing HouseTrade Regulation Reporter Cited 1987-1 Trade Cases, February 11, 1987, para. 67,603 at 60,613.

  5. Ibid. at 60,614.

  6. Ibid.

  7. Konik v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hosp., 733 F. 2d 1007, 1015 (1984).

  8. Drs. Steuer and Latham v. Nat. Med. Enterprises, 672 F. Supp. 1489,1497 (1987).

  9. Gonzales v. Insignares, reported in Commerce Clearing House,Trade Regulation Reporter Cited 1985-2 Trade Cases par 66,701 at 63,335.

  10. McMorris v. Williamsport Hospital, 597 F. Supp. 899,908 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Coastal Neuro Psychiatric Associates, PA. v. Onslow Memorial Hospital, Inc., reported in Commerce Clearing HouseTrade Regulation Reporter, Cited 1986-1 Trade Cases, para. 67,156 at 62,961-2.

  12. Parker doctrine dooms doctors' tie-in claim against hospital. Bureau of National Affairs,Antitrust Trade Regulat. Rep. July 10, 1986, at 68.

  13. Tomlinson v. Humana, Inc., No. 85-175, Ala. Sup Ct., 9/12/86, cited inAntitrust Trade Regulat. Rep., November 27, 1986, at 791.

  14. Exclusive service contract survives physician's challenge. Bureau of National Affairs.Antitrust Trade Regulat. Rep. November 27, 1986, at 791. Also, the plaintiff did not show any adverse effect upon the public welfare from the use of this contract.

  15. Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 104 S. Ct. at 1574–75, (1984).

  16. McMorris v. Williamsport Hosp., 597 F. Suppl. 899,908 (1984).

  17. Foster, H., Exclusive arrangements between hospitals and physicians: Antitrust's next frontier in health.St. Louis Law J. 26:535–559, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Blackstone, E.A., and Fuhr, J.P., Antitrust and exclusive agreements: The case of hospital-based physicians.Antitrust Bull. 739–758, 1984.

  19. Drs. Steuer and Latham v. Nat. med. Enterprises, 672 F. Supp. 1489,1497 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  20. McMorris v. Williamsport Hospital, 597 F. Supp. 899,908 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 104 S. Ct. 1551,1555 n.5 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hyde, at 1572.

  23. Lynk, W.J., and Morrisey, M.A., The economic basis of Hyde: Are market power and hospital exclusive contracts related?J. Law and Econ. pp. 399–421, 1987.

  24. Hyde. at 1566.

  25. Ibid. at 1567.

  26. McMorris v. Williamsport Hospital, 597 F. Suppl. 899.

  27. Ibid. at 912.

  28. White v. Rockingham Radiologists, Ltd., 820 F. 2d 98 (1987).

  29. Gonzales v. Insignaries reported in Commerce Clearing HouseTrade Regulation Reporter, Cited 1985-2 Trade Cases, para. 66, 701 at 63,334-6.

  30. Drs. Steuer and Latham v. National Medical Enterprises, 672 F. Supp. 1489,1494–1495 (1987).

  31. Ibid. at 1496.

  32. Reindl G, Denying hospital privileges to non-physicians: Does quality of care justify a potential restraint of trade?Indian Law Rev. 19:1234, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ibid.

  34. Ibid. at 1246.

  35. Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc. 772 F. 2d 1467 (1985).

  36. Ibid. at 1469.

  37. Nurse anesthetist suffers dismissed of claims against California hospital, Bureau of National Affairs,Antitrust Trade Regulat. Rep., October 1, 1987, pp. 517–18.

  38. Oltz v. St. Peter's Community Hospital reported in Commerce Clearing HouseTrade Regulation Reporter, Cited 1987-1, Trade Cases para. 67,477 at 59,993-7.

  39. Ibid. at 59,995.

  40. Weiss v. York Hospital, 745 F. 2d 786 (1984).

  41. Blackstone, E.A., The A.M.A. and the osteopaths: A study of the power of organized medicine.Antitrust Bull. 405-40, 1977.

  42. Weiss at 819.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blackstone, E.A., Fuhr, J.P. Exclusive arrangments in the hospital industry. J Med Syst 13, 193–203 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00996642

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00996642

Keywords

Navigation