A Market All Its Own: Medicare Advantage as a Separate Product Market in the DOJ’s Case against the Aetna-Humana Merger

D. Ross, David A. Maas
{"title":"A Market All Its Own: Medicare Advantage as a Separate Product Market in the DOJ’s Case against the Aetna-Humana Merger","authors":"D. Ross, David A. Maas","doi":"10.1108/S0193-589520180000028004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \nThis chapter assesses the doctrine of reasonable interchangeability through the lens of the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) successful effort to enjoin the megamerger of two of the largest national insurance companies, Aetna and Humana. The DOJ focused its challenge on the companies’ Medicare Advantage business, arguing that it is a separate product market from original Medicare and the merger would substantially reduce competition in the market for Medicare Advantage in many geographic markets across the country. The case turned on whether there was reasonable interchangeability between original Medicare and Medicare Advantage in the eyes of consumers. The judge relied on both practical indicia of interchangeability, including evidence of how likely Medicare beneficiaries were to switch between Medicare Advantage and Original Medicare, along with econometric evidence. The decision provides a useful roadmap of how a knowledgeable judge reviewing a merger will consider both Brown Shoe factors and econometric evidence in assessing reasonable interchangeability.","PeriodicalId":231580,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare Antitrust, Settlements, and the Federal Trade Commission","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare Antitrust, Settlements, and the Federal Trade Commission","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0193-589520180000028004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This chapter assesses the doctrine of reasonable interchangeability through the lens of the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) successful effort to enjoin the megamerger of two of the largest national insurance companies, Aetna and Humana. The DOJ focused its challenge on the companies’ Medicare Advantage business, arguing that it is a separate product market from original Medicare and the merger would substantially reduce competition in the market for Medicare Advantage in many geographic markets across the country. The case turned on whether there was reasonable interchangeability between original Medicare and Medicare Advantage in the eyes of consumers. The judge relied on both practical indicia of interchangeability, including evidence of how likely Medicare beneficiaries were to switch between Medicare Advantage and Original Medicare, along with econometric evidence. The decision provides a useful roadmap of how a knowledgeable judge reviewing a merger will consider both Brown Shoe factors and econometric evidence in assessing reasonable interchangeability.
一个独立的市场:医疗保险优势作为一个独立的产品市场在美国司法部反对安泰- humana合并的案例
本章通过美国司法部(DOJ)成功阻止两家最大的国家保险公司Aetna和Humana合并的努力,评估了合理互换性的原则。司法部将挑战集中在两家公司的Medicare Advantage业务上,认为这是一个独立于原有Medicare的产品市场,合并将大大减少Medicare Advantage在全国许多地理市场上的竞争。该案件的焦点在于,在消费者眼中,原始医疗保险和医疗保险优势之间是否存在合理的互换性。法官依赖于可互换性的实际指标,包括医疗保险受益人在医疗保险优势和原始医疗保险之间切换的可能性的证据,以及计量经济学证据。该决定提供了一个有用的路线图,说明一个知识渊博的法官在评估合理的互换性时,将如何考虑布朗鞋因素和计量经济学证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信