Gifford B D
Graduate School of Business, University of Colorado, Denver, USA.
J Healthc Manag. 1999 Sep-Oct;44(5):367-80; discussion 380-1.
This research considers four recent hospital merger attempts in smaller urban areas where a hospital merger clearly presents antitrust concerns, as determined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or Department of Justice (DOJ). These cases provide an understanding of the more compelling strategies that hospitals are using to offset federal antitrust concerns and the increased number of factors that are being used by the FTC and DOJ to analyze a merger's effect on a market. In particular, the cases illustrate how federal agencies' likelihood of contesting a merger is now based on the merging hospitals' ability to provide strong evidence of substantial savings resulting from a merger. Further, evidence indicates that states are taking on increasing authority for the oversight of hospital mergers. This federalism trend suggests that consumer protection for hospital mergers may be enhanced through a combination of federal and state oversight measures.
本研究考察了近期在较小城市地区发生的四起医院合并尝试案例,这些地区的医院合并明显引发了反垄断担忧,这是由联邦贸易委员会(FTC)或美国司法部(DOJ)判定的。这些案例有助于理解医院为抵消联邦反垄断担忧而采用的更具说服力的策略,以及联邦贸易委员会和美国司法部在分析合并对市场的影响时所使用的越来越多的因素。特别是,这些案例说明了联邦机构对合并提出质疑的可能性现在是基于合并医院提供有力证据证明合并能带来大幅节省的能力。此外,有证据表明各州在医院合并监管方面的权力正在增加。这种联邦制趋势表明,通过联邦和州的监管措施相结合,可能会加强对医院合并的消费者保护。