Physician collective bargaining.

Clin Orthop Relat Res

UCLA School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Published: November 2009

Current antitrust enforcement policy unduly restricts physician collaboration, especially among small physician practices. Among other matters, current enforcement policy has hindered the ability of physicians to implement efficient healthcare delivery innovations, such as the acquisition and implementation of health information technology (HIT). Furthermore, the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice have unevenly enforced the antitrust laws, thereby fostering an increasingly severe imbalance in the healthcare market in which dominant health insurers enjoy the benefit of largely unfettered consolidation at the cost of both consumers and providers. This article traces the history of antitrust enforcement in healthcare, describe the current marketplace, and suggest the problems that must be addressed to restore balance to the healthcare market and help to ensure an innovative and efficient healthcare system capable of meeting the demands of the 21st century. Specifically, the writer explains how innovative physician collaborations have been improperly stifled by the policies of the federal antitrust enforcement agencies, and recommend that these policies be relaxed to permit physicians more latitude to bargain collectively with health insurers in conjunction with procompetitive clinical integration efforts. The article also explains how the unbridled consolidation of the health insurance industry has resulted in higher premiums to consumers and lower compensation to physicians, and recommends that further consolidation be prohibited. Finally, the writer discusses how health insurers with market power are improperly undermining the physician-patient relationship, and recommend federal antitrust enforcement agencies take appropriate steps to protect patients and their physicians from this anticompetitive conduct. The article also suggests such steps will require changes in three areas: (1) health insurers must be prohibited from engaging in anticompetitive activity; (2) the continuing improper consolidation of the health insurance industry must be curtailed; and (3) the physician community must be permitted to undertake the collaborative activity necessary for the establishment of a transparent, coordinated, and efficient delivery system.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2758953PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1006-4DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

antitrust enforcement
16
health insurers
16
enforcement policy
8
efficient healthcare
8
healthcare market
8
federal antitrust
8
enforcement agencies
8
consolidation health
8
health insurance
8
insurance industry
8

Similar Publications

Forensic genetics in the shadows.

J Law Biosci

December 2024

College of Nursing, University of Utah, 10 South 2000 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA.

This article examines the controversial practice of law enforcement agencies searching genetic samples obtained in health care settings, without a warrant or consent. While police have previously used public genealogy databases for this purpose, our article describes how they are now secretly accessing genetic information from newborn screening programs and medical tests. This raises ethical and legal concerns, blurring the line between health care and law enforcement.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

It's time to address our nation's health care price crisis.

Am J Manag Care

September 2024

Catalyst for Payment Reform. Email:

High health care prices cause significant harm to individuals, businesses, communities, and society at large. These harms include reduced access to care, rising medical debt, lower wages, more inequity, and a growing burden on businesses and governments. Despite widespread recognition of the issue, there has been insufficient action to address it effectively.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Unlabelled: Policy Points Opioid treatment agreements (OTAs) are controversial because of the lack of evidence that their use reduces opioid-related harms and the potential risks they pose of stigmatizing patients and undermining the clinician-patient relationship. Even so, their use is now required in most jurisdictions, and their use is influencing the outcomes of civil and criminal lawsuits. More research is needed to evaluate how OTAs are implemented given existing requirements.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Competition between life science companies is critical to ensure innovative therapies are efficiently developed. Anticompetitive behavior may harm scientific progress and, ultimately, patients. One well-established category of anticompetitive behavior is the 'interlocking directorate'.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!