埃文斯顿最初的决定:病人流量分析有未来吗?

Journal of health law Pub Date : 2006-01-01
Michael R Bissegger
{"title":"埃文斯顿最初的决定:病人流量分析有未来吗?","authors":"Michael R Bissegger","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This Article analyzes the October 2005 Initial Decision of the Federal Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge ordering Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corporation to divest Highland Park Hospital on the grounds that the January 2000 merger of the entities violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act. In particular, this Article focuses on the ALJ's discussion of the use of patient flow analysis and the Elzinga-Hogarty test in defining relevant markets in hospital merger cases. Despite the ALJ's explicit rejection of the Elzinga-Hogarty Test and patient flow analysis as irrelevant and inappropriate in defining markets in the highly differentiated Hospital market, the author concludes that the ALJ's rejection of patient flow analysis likely was a response to misplaced and over-reliance on patient flow analysis by a number of courts in past prospective government challenges to hospital mergers as evidenced by the fact that the ALJ's analysis of competition and competitive effects relied upon, and thereby implicity endorsed, the use of patient flow analysis for certain purposes. Finally, the author concludes that patient flowanalysis, when used appropriately, should continue to be used as a preliminary step in geographic market definition and competitive effects analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":80027,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Evanston initial decision: is there a future for patient flow analysis?\",\"authors\":\"Michael R Bissegger\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This Article analyzes the October 2005 Initial Decision of the Federal Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge ordering Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corporation to divest Highland Park Hospital on the grounds that the January 2000 merger of the entities violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act. In particular, this Article focuses on the ALJ's discussion of the use of patient flow analysis and the Elzinga-Hogarty test in defining relevant markets in hospital merger cases. Despite the ALJ's explicit rejection of the Elzinga-Hogarty Test and patient flow analysis as irrelevant and inappropriate in defining markets in the highly differentiated Hospital market, the author concludes that the ALJ's rejection of patient flow analysis likely was a response to misplaced and over-reliance on patient flow analysis by a number of courts in past prospective government challenges to hospital mergers as evidenced by the fact that the ALJ's analysis of competition and competitive effects relied upon, and thereby implicity endorsed, the use of patient flow analysis for certain purposes. Finally, the author concludes that patient flowanalysis, when used appropriately, should continue to be used as a preliminary step in geographic market definition and competitive effects analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":80027,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of health law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of health law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了2005年10月联邦贸易委员会行政法法官命令埃文斯顿西北医疗保健公司剥离高地公园医院的初步决定,理由是2000年1月两个实体的合并违反了《克莱顿法》第7条。本文特别关注ALJ对在医院合并案例中使用患者流量分析和Elzinga-Hogarty测试来定义相关市场的讨论。尽管ALJ明确拒绝Elzinga-Hogarty测试和患者流量分析,认为它们在高度差异化的医院市场中定义市场是不相关和不合适的,作者的结论是,司法法官拒绝患者流量分析可能是对过去政府对医院合并的挑战中一些法院错误和过度依赖患者流量分析的回应,事实证明,司法法官对竞争和竞争影响的分析依赖于并因此隐含地认可了为某些目的使用患者流量分析。最后,作者得出结论,如果使用得当,患者流量分析应该继续作为地理市场定义和竞争效应分析的初步步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Evanston initial decision: is there a future for patient flow analysis?

This Article analyzes the October 2005 Initial Decision of the Federal Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge ordering Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corporation to divest Highland Park Hospital on the grounds that the January 2000 merger of the entities violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act. In particular, this Article focuses on the ALJ's discussion of the use of patient flow analysis and the Elzinga-Hogarty test in defining relevant markets in hospital merger cases. Despite the ALJ's explicit rejection of the Elzinga-Hogarty Test and patient flow analysis as irrelevant and inappropriate in defining markets in the highly differentiated Hospital market, the author concludes that the ALJ's rejection of patient flow analysis likely was a response to misplaced and over-reliance on patient flow analysis by a number of courts in past prospective government challenges to hospital mergers as evidenced by the fact that the ALJ's analysis of competition and competitive effects relied upon, and thereby implicity endorsed, the use of patient flow analysis for certain purposes. Finally, the author concludes that patient flowanalysis, when used appropriately, should continue to be used as a preliminary step in geographic market definition and competitive effects analysis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信