• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATESFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINAASHEVILLE DIVISION
Civil No. 1:02CV288UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,))Plaintiff,)))vs.)Before: Judge Graham C. Mullen)MOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE, P.A.,))Defendant.))
Public Comments of Citizens for Voluntary Tradeto the Proposed Final Judgment
Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. ÿ (b)-(h), andthe notice filed by the United States in the January 10, 2003, edition of the
FederalRegister 
, Citizens for Voluntary Trade respectfully submits the enclosed publiccomments in response to the proposed Final Judgment in the above-captioned case. _______________________________ S.M. Oliva
President
Citizens for Voluntary Trade2000 F Street, NW, #315Washington, DC 20006(202) 223-0071FILED: March 7, 2003
 
[2]
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
RESOLUTION
.........................................................................................................................1
I
NTRODUCTION
.........................................................................................................................2
P
ART
I:A
NALYSIS OF THE
C
OMPLAINT
...................................................................................4
A.
Mountain and the “uniform fee schedule”.
.........................................................4
B. Jurisdictional issues.
...............................................................................................6
C. Marketplace description and analysis.
.................................................................9
D. Anti-Competitive Effects.
.....................................................................................11
E. Request for relief.
..................................................................................................13
P
ART
II:H
ISTORICAL
B
ACKGROUND
....................................................................................14
A. Origins of government intervention in healthcare
...........................................14
B. Origins of physician antitrust prosecutions.
.....................................................17
C.The DOJ-
FTC “Statements”
.................................................................................20
D.
Constitutional analysis of the DOJ’s antitrust policies
....................................23
P
ART
III:R
ECENT
C
ASES
........................................................................................................26
A. OGMC of Napa Valley.
........................................................................................26
B. The Colorado cases.
...............................................................................................29
C. System Health Providers.
.....................................................................................33
D. Conclusions based on recent cases.
.....................................................................35
P
ART
IV:A
NALYSIS OF THE
P
ROPOSED
F
INAL
 J
UDGMENT
...................................................37
A.The Competitive Impact Statement.
...................................................................37
B.The proposed remedy.
..........................................................................................40
C.
Defining the “public interest”.
............................................................................42
D.
The Court’s powers and duties.
...........................................................................44
P
ART
V:A
LTERNATIVES TO THE
P
ROPOSED
F
INAL
 J
UDGMENT
............................................46
C
ONCLUSION
...........................................................................................................................48
 
RESOLUTION
The Board of Directors of Citizens for Voluntary Trade,
Considering
the fundamental role of judicial review in protecting the rights ofAmericans from the abuseof government power,
Recognizing
the ever-increasing impact of antitrust law on the ability of Americansto maintain a capitalist system based on the principleof voluntary trade for mutualbenefit,
Noting
that the principles of capitalism are inconsistent with the enforcement of theantitrust laws,
 Affirming
that antitrust law is not the proper means of promoting honestcompetition and free trade among individuals and businesses,
Recalling
the numerous abuses of federal antitrust authorities in applying theantitrust laws unjustly to the collective bargaining actions of physicians and health careproviders,
Believing
that the case currently pending against Mountain Health Care is baselessas amatter of fact, law,and justice,
Convinced
that the only means to protect the rights of Mountain Health Care, and ofAmericans generally, is for immediate judicial action,1.
Directs
the president of Citizens for Voluntary Trade to file timely andsubstantial comments with the United States opposing entry of the proposedFinal Judgment against Mountain Health Care;2.
 Appeals
to the United States District Court for the Western District of NorthCarolina to reject entry of the proposed Final Judgment;3.
Urges
the United States Department of Justice to dismiss its complaint againstMountain Health Care; and4.
Calls upon
the United States Government to rescind its Statements of AntitrustEnforcement Policy in Health Care with all deliberate speed.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...