NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK: GEOGRAPHIC MARKET DEFINITION AND THE FTC'S CASE AGAINST CHICAGOLAND PHYSICIAN ASSOCIATIONS

Gregory D. Adams and Fred S. McChesney

Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2010, vol. 6, issue 4, 771-809

Abstract: In the past decade, the Federal Trade Commission has brought many cases opposing joint contracting by independent practice associations (IPAs), including a high-profile case against the Evanston Medical Group IPA in suburban Chicago. The FTC frequently claims that such contracting is per se illegal. This article criticizes the FTC's approach to evaluating joint contracting by IPAs. As described herein, joint contracting by IPAs have potential precompetitive benefits, as well as potential anticompetitive costs. Thus, rule of reason treatment is appropriate. This article also describes issues related to market definition and market power under such a rule of reason analysis.

JEL-codes: L40 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2010
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhp031 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:6:y:2010:i:4:p:771-809.

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Competition Law and Economics is currently edited by Nicholas Economides, Amelia Fletcher, Michal Gal, Damien Geradin, Ioannis Lianos and Tommaso Valletti

More articles in Journal of Competition Law and Economics from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().