Szabo D S
Am J Law Med. 1980 Winter;5(4):393-413.
Until recently, contractual relationships between health care providers and health insurers appeared to be immune from antitrust scrutiny. The Supreme Court ended this apparent immunity in Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug CO., 440 U.S. 205 (1979), holding that insurance plans offering goods and services to policyholders are not exempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act from the federal antitrust laws. By denying a McCarran-Ferguson exemption, the Court did not decide the ultimate issue--whether the insurers in fact had violated federal antitrust law. This Note reviews Royal Drug in light of precedent and of the purpose of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This Note contends that the result in Royal Drug follows logically and consistently from the Court's earlier readings of the Act, but that the Court's reasoning is unclear and, even under its strongest reading, unconvincing; hence, an alternative approach to interpreting and applying the McCarran-Ferguson Act is suggested. Finally, this Note analyzes the application of Royal Drug by lower federal courts and discusses its implications for the interface of health law and antitrust law.
直到最近，医疗服务提供者与健康保险公司之间的合同关系似乎都免受反垄断审查。最高法院在“团体人寿与健康保险公司诉皇家药品公司案”（《美国最高法院判例汇编》第440卷，第205页，第95号，第205页，美国最高法院，1979年）中终结了这种明显的豁免权，认定向投保人提供商品和服务的保险计划不能依据《麦卡伦-弗格森法案》豁免于联邦反垄断法。通过拒绝给予《麦卡伦-弗格森法案》豁免权，最高法院并未裁决最终问题，即保险公司是否实际上违反了联邦反垄断法。本注释依据先例及《麦卡伦-弗格森法案》的目的对“皇家药品公司案”进行了审视。本注释认为，“皇家药品公司案”的结果在逻辑上与最高法院先前对该法案的解读一致且连贯，但最高法院的推理并不清晰，即便按照其最有力的解读也难以令人信服；因此，建议采用另一种解释和适用《麦卡伦-弗格森法案》的方法。最后，本注释分析了联邦下级法院对“皇家药品公司案”的适用情况，并探讨了其对健康法与反垄断法交叉领域的影响。
