Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

How can PPOs control prices without violating antitrust laws?

J M Fried

    Hospital Progress
    |February 10, 1984
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    The physician as a source of hospital capital.

    Hospital progress·1984
    Same author

    Corporate restructuring: what, when, where, why, and how?

    Trustee : the journal for hospital governing boards·1984
    Same author

    Hospital mergers and the antitrust laws: major roadblock or minor constraint.

    Hospital & health services administration·1984
    Same author

    Physicians and PPOs: antitrust considerations in setting fees.

    The Internist·1984
    Same author

    Antitrust may pose new legal issues for hospitals.

    Hospitals·1982
    Same author

    Antitrust--a deregulation prospect.

    Issues in health care (Philadelphia, Pa.)·1981
    Same journal

    The danger of exploiting student nurses.

    Hospital progress·2010
    Same journal

    Organizing the personnel service.

    Hospital progress·2010
    Same journal

    When a nun becomes a patient; the teaching Sister as a patient.

    Hospital progress·2010
    Same journal

    When a nun becomes a patient; the hospital Sister as a patient.

    Hospital progress·2010
    Same journal

    Personnel policies and conditions of service; the personnel of the nursing department of the Catholic hospital.

    Hospital progress·2010
    Same journal

    The Hospital Survey and Construction Act (S.-191).

    Hospital progress·2010
    See all related articles

    Preferred provider organizations (PPOs) must carefully structure fee setting to avoid antitrust violations. Independent negotiation and true risk-sharing partnerships can help PPOs navigate these complex legal requirements.

    Area of Science:

    • Healthcare Law
    • Antitrust Law
    • Health Economics

    Background:

    • Preferred provider organizations (PPOs) face scrutiny regarding antitrust compliance in price negotiation.
    • The Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society highlighted price-fixing concerns related to physician organizations.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To analyze the antitrust implications of PPO pricing mechanisms.
    • To provide guidance on structuring PPOs to comply with antitrust laws.

    Main Methods:

    • Legal analysis of Supreme Court decisions and Department of Justice business review letters.
    • Examination of PPO structures and their potential antitrust vulnerabilities.

    Main Results:

    • Collective fee setting by PPOs can be deemed illegal price fixing.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Antitrust risks can be mitigated through independent pricing, individual contracting, or acting as a broker.
  • PPOs structured as partnerships with risk-sharing or those involving individual fee negotiation may avoid liability.
  • Department of Justice approved PPO models involving individual rate negotiation and intermediary services without direct fee setting.

    • Conclusions:

    • PPOs must carefully design their operations to avoid unlawful agreements among competitors.
    • Strategies such as independent price determination, individual contracting, and genuine risk-sharing are crucial for antitrust compliance.
    • Seeking expert antitrust advice is essential for PPOs to navigate legal complexities.