This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Case Study

Antitrust Case Analysis

This essay is written by:

Louis PHD Verified writer

Finished papers: 5822

4.75

Proficient in:

Psychology, English, Economics, Sociology, Management, and Nursing

You can get writing help to write an essay on these topics
100% plagiarism-free

Hire This Writer

Antitrust Case Analysis

The fundamental aspect of entrepreneurs and investors venturing into business is to make a profit and increase the market share of its products and services. The malpractices of the company to establish oligopoly and monopoly business structures necessitated the establishment of the Antitrust laws that protect consumers against businesses that violate the business’s corporate social responsibilities. 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 a conducive economic environment for the small business existence (Journal of antitrust enforcement agency effectiveness study, 2016). Three antitrust law cases are examined to ascertain the motive of the particulars, its impact on the law and power brokers, and its concerns regarding health care leaders.

United States v. Charleston and St. Mary’s Medical centers (2:16-cv-03664-JTC, 04/14/16)

The two health care facilities violated the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 that prohibits businesses from engaging in anticompetitive activities. Favorable business competition facilitates quality service delivery to patients in terms of hiring trained physicians, integrating a fast system, and availing quality medical equipment for use. Limited advertisement within the hospital’s Geographical area minimizes creativity and innovativeness to improve service delivery in the long-term. The service providers will have a defined market resulting in increased medical costs, determine price setting, and being reluctant to patient complaints. The two hospitals were restrained from coordinating and engaging in anticompetitive activities. Medical leaders should emphasize engaging procompetitive activities that promote the proficient coexistence of the business environment.

United States v. Humana and Arcadian Management services (12-CV-00464, 03/27/12)

Humana and Arcadian management services acted against the Clayton Act. The two companies provide Medicare and other insurance coverage policies to the clients.  Arcadian is the leading medical insurance provider in the country, while Humana has significant a significant share in the economy. If an Arcadian company acquires Humana, its average total market share is above 60%. The merger’s impact will result in an oligopolistic market structure that prohibits new entrants into the market. Medical leaders need to be compliant with the antitrust laws that prohibit anticompetitive activities. The committees entitled with the responsibility of elaborating antitrust laws should be well-constituted, adhere to enacted antitrust policies, and members should follow the designed protocols.

United States v. Mountain Health Care (1:02CV288-T, 12/13/02)

            Mountain Health Care violated the Sherman Act. The company negotiated and contracted with health care plans despite the fact it had inadequate clinical and financial plans. The act is an anticompetitive activity that sets prices and restrains any form of competition among the service provides. The uniform price leads to uncompetitive physicians and service providers who do not value the quality of the service rendered to consumers. The constant prices raised rates of offering medical services to the clients in the state. The judgment issued disbanded the Mountain Health Care for engaging in the anticompetitive activities that deny customers quality services. Medical leaders should be at the forefront of promoting procompetitive activities to create a proficient customer experience.

In conclusion, the antitrust case analysis enlightens service providers and practicing physicians to embrace procompetitive activities that enable businesses to operate effectively. Monopolistic and oligopolistic market structures in the Health Care industry will cripple effective service delivery to consumers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Health Care. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2018, from https://www.justice.gov/atr/health-care

Pozgar. (2018). Legal aspects of health care administration. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

 

 

 

 

 

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers

 Get started in just 3 minutes
 Sit back relax and leave the writing to us
 Sources and citations are provided
 100% Plagiarism free
error: Content is protected !!
×
Hi, my name is Jenn 👋

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Check Out the Form
Need Help?
Dont be shy to ask