The US District Court for the District of Alabama rules on the applicability of the per se versus rule of reason standard of review for a series of allegedly anticompetitive restrictions in the health insurance market (Blue Cross / Blue Shield)

In In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, [1] a recent decision in the Northern District of Alabama, Judge R. David Proctor ruled on the applicability of the per se versus rule of reason standard of review for a series of allegedly anticompetitive restrictions adopted by the Blue Cross/Blue Shield defendants that the Plaintiffs alleged amounted to a horizontal agreement to allocate markets and limit output. The court conducted a detailed factual analysis and, relying on what it considered binding Supreme Court precedent, found that where a group of separately owned and controlled potentially competing health insurance companies effectively control the entity that created and implemented territorial restrictions along with output limitations, the restrictions should be

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • Hausfeld (San Francisco)
  • Hausfeld (Washington)

Quotation

Megan E. Jones, Swathi Bojedla, The US District Court for the District of Alabama rules on the applicability of the per se versus rule of reason standard of review for a series of allegedly anticompetitive restrictions in the health insurance market (Blue Cross / Blue Shield), 16 April 2018, e-Competitions April 2018, Art. N° 96402

Visites 14

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues