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

Antitrust and peer review.

J W Bettman1

  • 1Pacific Presbyterian Medical Center, Stanford University, California.

Survey of Ophthalmology
|March 1, 1991
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Physicians can avoid antitrust lawsuits by avoiding price-fixing agreements and ensuring fair peer review processes. Engaging an antitrust attorney is recommended for navigating these complex legal landscapes.

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

Allergic retinosis.

American journal of ophthalmology·2010
Same author

Experimental dinitrophenol cataract.

American journal of ophthalmology·2010
Same author

Production of cataracts in chicks with dinitrophenol.

Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1929)·2010
Same author

The development of the code of ethics for the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Survey of ophthalmology·2000
Same author

Risk management issues in the new managed care environment.

Survey of ophthalmology·1996
Same author

Ethics and the American Academy of Ophthalmology in historical perspective.

Ophthalmology·1996
Same journal

Utilization of anterior segment optical coherence tomography in childhood glaucoma: A systematic review.

Survey of ophthalmology·2026
Same journal

Peripapillary pachychoroid syndrome: Clinical and imaging features, diagnostic differentiation and therapeutic strategies.

Survey of ophthalmology·2026
Same journal

Prognostic factors and postoperative outcomes in pediatric cataract patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Survey of ophthalmology·2026
Same journal

Predicting the progression of proliferative diabetic retinopathy: Pathophysiology, imaging phenotypes, and determinants of disease persistence despite therapy.

Survey of ophthalmology·2026
Same journal

Comment on "Quantitative imaging for assessing uveitis activity: A comprehensive review".

Survey of ophthalmology·2026
Same journal

Artificial intelligence and medical retina training: A scoping review of educational opportunities, emerging risks, and curricular responses.

Survey of ophthalmology·2026
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Medical Law
  • Antitrust Law
  • Healthcare Policy

Background:

  • Physicians face potential antitrust scrutiny for business practices.
  • Peer review committees play a crucial role in healthcare quality assurance.
  • Understanding legal guidelines is essential for physicians' professional conduct.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To outline guidelines for physicians to avoid antitrust actions.
  • To clarify the legal protections afforded to members of peer review committees.
  • To provide recommendations for ensuring fair and legally sound peer review processes.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of antitrust laws and regulations relevant to medical practice.
  • Review of legal precedents concerning physician agreements and peer review.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Identification of best practices for conducting peer review investigations.

    • Main Results:

    • Avoiding agreements on price, quantity, quality, patient allocation, or office location with competitors mitigates antitrust risk.
    • Peer review committee members are protected if decisions are fact-based, follow due process, and serve healthcare's best interests.
    • Engaging specialized antitrust counsel is advised.

    Conclusions:

    • Adherence to specific antitrust guidelines can protect physicians from legal action.
    • Fair and transparent peer review processes are critical for both physician protection and healthcare quality.
    • Proactive legal counsel and diligent documentation are key to mitigating risks.