Analysis of 3 Antitrust Law Cases on the Particulars, Law and powerbrokers, and Health Care Leaders
The fundamental aspect of entrepreneurs and investors venturing into business is to make profit and increase the market share of its products and services. The economic principles of demand and supply cannot influence the nature of business in the health care industry. When the business generates high profits, it strives to engage in illegal activities to increase the market share and to drive out its competitors from the competitive market structure (Weyant & Watt, 2020). The malpractices of the business to establish oligopoly and monopoly business structures necessitates the establishment of the Antitrust laws that protect consumers against businesses that violates the corporate social responsibilities of the business (Cohen, 2016). The antitrust laws, for instance are, the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act that restrains anticompetitive activities, Celler-kefauver Act in 1950 that prevents machines and equipment acquisition, and 1936 Robinson-Patman Act that provide conducive economic environment for the small business existence (Journal of antitrust enforcement agency effectiveness study, 2016). The laws enacted requires healthcare businesses to be procompetitive in order to provide quality services that meets customers’ expectation. The antitrust law agencies monitor the if the business mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, associates and subsidiaries are procompetitive or anticompetitive. An evaluation of 3 antitrust law cases on the particulars, its effects on the law and powerbrokers, and the concerns regarding the case in the role of health care leaders.
The evaluation of a joint venture of existing Expensive Equipment where one of the Hospitals in the venture has the equipment. The three hospitals, serve a large population of people of over 300,000 that requires quality services (Pozgar, 2018). The General hospital needs to provide the magnetic resonance imaging devices as the Mercy and the University Hospitals. Will The General hospital lacks capabilities of acquiring the equipment that will enable it provide quality services to the customers in the geographical area. The joint venture agreement is not stipulated in the antitrust laws, however, the merger does not result to anticompetitive activities that would result to undesired competition. The health leaders should focus on examining the collateral agreement among the three Hospitals to ensure it adheres the antitrust safety zones.
Joint venture for specialized clinical service Not involving purchase of High-Technology. The antitrust laws emphasize on great customer experience, and reduction of monopoly emergence of relevant business enterprises. The two hospitals in the Midvale do not offer surgery programs to their consumers. The patients get the service in other regions hence making it expensive. Establishing a joint venture service which is procompetitive to the two businesses does not violate the antitrust laws (Pozgar, 2018). The two hospitals are independent in operation of the normal activities. They only share the surgery program which both of do not offer independently. According to the geographical location of Midvale and the significance of the service, the two hospitals do not break the antitrust laws. Sharing of the equipment, physicians, and the resources according to the written agreement does not create anticompetitive activities. The health care leaders should ensure the businesses competes on other services apart from the surgery program.
Rural joint ventures involving sharing a given percentage of purchasing equipment and necessities. The two rural hospitals amalgamate part of the procurement department. The core function is to minimize the purchasing cost. The health leaders examine the compliance agreement among the two acute hospitals. The joint venture enables customers to obtain the service instead of travelling to distant towns.
In conclusion, antitrust laws have protected consumers against anticompetitive activities that result to monopoly and oligopoly. Antitrust laws ensure compliance in education, adhering to enacted protocols, procompetitive mergers, and adequate training to employees offering services.
References
Cohen, I. G. (2016). The Oxford handbook of U.S. healthcare law. Oxford University Press.
Journal of antitrust enforcement agency effectiveness study. (2016). Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 4(2), 229-273. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnw008
Pozgar. (2018). Legal aspects of health care administration. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Weyant, R. J., & Watt, R. G. (2020). A call for action to improve US oral health care. The Journal of the American Dental Association, 151(2), 73-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2019.12.003