The US DoJ challenges "most favoured nations" clauses in the healthcare sector by analyzing their anticompetitive effects under section 1 of the Sherman Act (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan)

‘Most Favored Nations’ (MFN) Clauses under the Spotlight: U.S. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan — When Might Otherwise Competitively Neutral or Procompetitive MFN Clauses Violate the Antitrust Laws?* On October 18, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice and the State of Michigan sued Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (“Blue Cross”), a not-for-profit insurance provider, under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and analogous state law to enjoin Blue Cross from including most-favored-customer (aka, ‘most favored nation’ (MFN)) clauses in its contracts with hospitals in Michigan. United States of America and the State of Michigan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 2:10-cv-15155-DPH-MKM, E.D. Mich. (complaint filed 10/18/10). (A follow-on private putative class action was filed several days

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

Author

  • Richard Wolfram, Esq. (New York)

Quotation

Richard Wolfram, The US DoJ challenges "most favoured nations" clauses in the healthcare sector by analyzing their anticompetitive effects under section 1 of the Sherman Act (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan), 18 October 2010, e-Competitions Bulletin October 2010, Art. N° 36661

Visites 954

All issues

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