• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

医疗保健领域的成本控制与反垄断法。

Cost containment in the health care field and the antitrust laws.

作者信息

Shapiro D I

出版信息

Am J Law Med. 1982 Winter;7(4):425-35.

PMID:7102679
Abstract

The Supreme Court of the United States and other courts currently are considering the question of the extent to which the health care field should be subject to antitrust rules. This Article explores the special characteristics of the health care field, and the problems they create for antitrust analysis. Two current cases--Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society (awaiting decision by the Supreme Court) and Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. (pending in the District of Massachusetts)--illustrate the issues raised by efforts to contain health care costs through the setting of maximum fees. This Article suggests that traditional antitrust principles should and will prevail over arguments that such restraints are in the public interest.

摘要

美国最高法院和其他法院目前正在考虑医疗保健领域应在多大程度上受制于反垄断规则这一问题。本文探讨了医疗保健领域的特殊特征,以及这些特征给反垄断分析带来的问题。当前的两个案例——亚利桑那州诉马里科帕县医学协会案(等待最高法院裁决)和卡特尔诉马萨诸塞州蓝盾公司案(在马萨诸塞州地区法院待决)——说明了通过设定最高费用来控制医疗保健成本的努力所引发的问题。本文认为,传统的反垄断原则应该且将会压倒那种认为此类限制符合公共利益的观点。

相似文献

1
Cost containment in the health care field and the antitrust laws.医疗保健领域的成本控制与反垄断法。
Am J Law Med. 1982 Winter;7(4):425-35.
2
Comment on Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.: an antitrust analysis of Blue Shield's reimbursement schemes.
Am J Law Med. 1986;11(4):465-500.
3
Recent supreme court antitrust rulings in health care.美国最高法院近期关于医疗保健领域的反垄断裁决。
Am J Hosp Pharm. 1983 Apr;40(4):639-41.
4
Vertical restraints among hospitals, physicians and health insurers that raise rivals' costs. A case study of Reazin v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. and Ocean State Physicians Health Plan, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island.
Am J Law Med. 1988;14(2-3):147-69.
5
Examining exclusionary conduct of HMOs and PPOs: a case comment on Northwest Medical Laboratories v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oregon.审视健康维护组织(HMOs)和优先提供者组织(PPOs)的排他性行为:对西北医学实验室诉俄勒冈州蓝十字蓝盾公司案的案例评论
Am J Law Med. 1991;17(3):271-88.
6
Antitrust and health care: provider controlled health plans and the Maricopa decision.反垄断与医疗保健:医疗服务提供者控制的健康保险计划及马里科帕判决
Am J Law Med. 1982 Fall;8(3):223-49.
7
Antitrust implications of health planning: National Gerimedical Hospital and Gerontology Center v. Blue Cross of Kansas City.医疗规划的反垄断影响:国家老年医学医院及老年医学中心诉堪萨斯城蓝十字公司案
Am J Law Med. 1982 Fall;8(3):321-48.
8
An economic analysis of the Maricopa decision.对马里科帕县判决的经济分析。
Health Matrix. 1987 Summer;5(2):26-30.
9
Antitrust and third party insurers.反垄断与第三方保险公司。
Am J Law Med. 1982 Fall;8(3):251-70.
10
The sleeping giant awakens: the physician and the antitrust laws.
Leg Med. 1985:334-56.