Dear Readers,
In this CPI issue, we look at two key decisions relating to the healthcare sector in the U.S. Both could have strategic impact on the stakeholders involved and the healthcare sector.
In North Carolina Dental Board case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “state action” antitrust immunity (the 1943 Parker decision) was not applicable to actions of the state dental board (that comprised private practitioners and had issued diktats against non-dentists from performing certain procedures that it believed were in the exclusive domain of licensed dentists), and held certain actions of the concerned state board to be anti-competitive. The authors discuss the nuances of this decision and how it could affect professionals across the U.S.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the demerger of the merged entities in the St. Luke’s–Saltzer matter on the ground that the defendants (a hospital chain) could not adequately prove the pro-competitive efficiencies generated by the merger and rebut the assumption that high post-merger concentration was harmful to the patients. The ruling brings into spotlight two key issues – the role of efficiencies arguments in merger analyses (efficiency of the efficiency argument, if you will) and the compatibility of the Affordable Care Act (and the need for horizontally and vertically integrated healthcare system) with classic antitrust laws.
Both the St Lukes case and North Carolina Dental Board cases could have far-reaching impact on the healthcare space and its regulation, as well as on the diverse stakeholders involved.
As always, thank you to our great panel of authors.
Sincerely,
CPI Team
