The response of the dominant firm to competition: the Ocean State case.
作者信息
Goldberg L G, Greenberg W
机构信息
Department of Finance, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA.
出版信息
Health Care Manage Rev. 1995 Winter;20(1):65-74. doi: 10.1097/00004010-199502010-00008.
Abstract
The Ocean State antitrust case illustrates the operation of the competitive marketplace in health insurance. Blue Cross, the dominant firm in Rhode Island, responded competitively to the entrance of a new competitor, Ocean State, in three ways: 1) a most-favored-nation clause, 2) creation of a PPO offering similar benefits as Ocean State, and 3) an adverse selection policy. These actions are assessed to be legitimate competitive responses and the decisions of the higher courts overturning the jury verdict against Blue Cross are supported.
摘要
相似文献
1
The response of the dominant firm to competition: the Ocean State case.
Health Care Manage Rev. 1995 Winter;20(1):65-74. doi: 10.1097/00004010-199502010-00008.
2
3
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.
4
"Blues interfered illegally with HMO.".
Mod Healthc. 1987 Nov 20;17(24):12.
5
The Marshfield Clinic case: the sound of a broken record.
Ann Health Law. 1996(5):1-31.
6
Court overturns jury's verdict on Blue Cross antitrust violation claim.
Bus Health. 1988 Nov;6(1):44-5.
7
Blues' discount policy seen as antitrust issue.
Hospitals. 1986 Nov 5;60(21):36.
8
Health maintenance organizations and the role of antitrust law.
Duke Law J. 1978 May(2):487-541.
9
Minimizing antitrust risks of Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans.
J Contemp Health Law Policy. 1988 Spring;4:227-72.
10
Is this group an illegal doctor monopoly?
Med Econ. 1994 Sep 26;71(18):64-6, 69-70, 72 passim.
引用本文的文献
1
Marshfield Clinic, physician networks, and the exercise of monopoly power.
Health Serv Res. 1998 Dec;33(5 Pt 2):1461-76.
Zotero 插件