Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Thursday, January 6, 2011

NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK: GEOGRAPHIC MARKET DEFINITION AND THE FTC'S CASE AGAINST CHICAGOLAND PHYSICIAN ASSOCIATIONS

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Gregory D. Adams (CRA) and Fred S. McChesney (Northwestern Law) describe NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK: GEOGRAPHIC MARKET DEFINITION AND THE FTC'S CASE AGAINST CHICAGOLAND PHYSICIAN ASSOCIATIONS.

ABSTRACT: In the past decade, the Federal Trade Commission has brought many cases opposing joint contracting by independent practice associations (IPAs), including a high-profile case against the Evanston Medical Group IPA in suburban Chicago. The FTC frequently claims that such contracting is per se illegal. This article criticizes the FTC's approach to evaluating joint contracting by IPAs. As described herein, joint contracting by IPAs have potential precompetitive benefits, as well as potential anticompetitive costs. Thus, rule of reasons treatment is appropriate. This article also describes issues related to market definition and market power under such a rule of reason analysis.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2011/01/not-good-enough-for-government-work-geographic-market-definition-and-the-ftcs-case-against-chicagola.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0148c69e5ab7970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK: GEOGRAPHIC MARKET DEFINITION AND THE FTC'S CASE AGAINST CHICAGOLAND PHYSICIAN ASSOCIATIONS :

Comments

Post a comment