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

The National Resident Matching Program and antitrust law.

Frances H Miller1, Thomas L Greaney,

  • 1Boston University School of Law, 765 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, Mass 02215, USA. fmiller@bu.edu

JAMA
|February 18, 2003
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

Just Fix the Damn Payment System!

American journal of law & medicine·2025
Same author

New evidence on the impacts of cross-market hospital mergers on commercial prices and measures of quality.

Health services research·2024
Same author

The Rise Of Cross-Market Hospital Systems And Their Market Power In The US.

Health affairs (Project Hope)·2022
Same author

States' Merger Review Authority Is Associated With States Challenging Hospital Mergers, But Prices Continue To Increase.

Health affairs (Project Hope)·2021
Same author

Coping With Concentration.

Health affairs (Project Hope)·2017
Same author

INTRODUCTION: Teaching Public Health Law: Time for a Status Upgrade.

The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics·2015
Same journal

WHO Issues Guidelines for Treating Ebola and Marburg Viruses.

JAMA·2026
Same journal

FDA Approves Additional Naloxone Nasal Spray for Opioid Overdose.

JAMA·2026
Same journal

HIV May Hide in More Cells Than Previously Thought-Here's What That Could Mean for a Cure.

JAMA·2026
Same journal

US Dietary Supplement Use Increasing, Especially in Older Adults.

JAMA·2026
Same journal

Heat Stress From Climate Change Surges Globally.

JAMA·2026
Same journal

Strength Training Linked With Lower Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Women.

JAMA·2026
See all related articles

Physicians allege the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) violates antitrust laws by suppressing wages and worsening working conditions. The lawsuit, Jung v. Association of American Medical Colleges, faces legal challenges but presents a plausible case for antitrust violations.

Area of Science:

  • Antitrust Law
  • Healthcare Policy
  • Medical Education

Background:

  • A class action lawsuit was filed in May 2002 by physicians against the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP).
  • Allegations include violations of antitrust laws, suppressed resident wages, and demanding working conditions.
  • The lawsuit also implicates the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education regarding anticompetitive accreditation standards.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the antitrust implications of the NRMP's practices.
  • To assess the legal challenges and potential outcomes of the Jung v. Association of American Medical Colleges case.
  • To explore the broader impact of the NRMP on physician training and the healthcare system.

Main Methods:

  • Legal analysis of antitrust law in the context of medical residency matching.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examination of the NRMP's operational procedures and their effect on competition.
  • Review of existing legal precedents and potential judicial deference to professional activities.

    • Main Results:

    • The NRMP's practices appear to limit competition, potentially violating antitrust laws.
    • Plaintiffs have presented a plausible case, suggesting potential for lengthy litigation.
    • The case presents complex legal challenges due to the intersection of antitrust law and medical education.

    Conclusions:

    • The outcome of the lawsuit remains uncertain, with potential for significant legal battles.
    • Existing antitrust doctrine suggests the plaintiffs have a viable claim.
    • A legislative solution may be more desirable than judicial resolution due to the case's limitations and systemic implications.