Advertisement

July 24, 2014

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Phoebe Putney Hospital Merger Challenge

On Monday November 26, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument on two issues under the state action doctrine in connection with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) challenge of Phoebe Putney Health System Inc.’s acquisition of Palmyra Park Hospital, LLC in Albany, Georgia.  View the full transcript of oral arguments.

In April 2011, the FTC filed an administrative complaint challenging the transaction and a complaint in federal district court seeking an injunction.  The FTC alleged that the transaction is a merger to monopoly for inpatient general acute care services sold to commercial health plans and is presumptively unlawful.  The federal district court dismissed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed.  Both courts found that the transaction was immune from antitrust scrutiny under the state action doctrine, which exempts government entities from federal antitrust laws when they act pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy to displace competition with regulation, and the suppression of competition is a reasonably foreseeable result of that policy.  A local hospital authority district in Georgia, Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County, owns the assets of Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital and leases them to a not-for-profit corporation, Phoebe Putney Health System, which operates the hospital.  The hospital authority also acquired the assets of Palmyra Park Hospital LLC and leases them to Phoebe Putney Health System.

The Supreme Court certified two issues for review.  The first issue is whether the Georgia Hospital Authorities Law, 1941 Ga. Laws 241 (Ga. Code Ann. §§ 31-7-70 et seq.), “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” a “state policy to displace competition” with regulation.  The second question related more to the unique facts in this case; that is, if the Georgia Hospital Authorities Law did clearly articulate a state policy to displace competition with regulation, whether the state actively supervised the Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County’s exercise of that power.

The 11th Circuit found that the Georgia Hospital Authorities Law gave the hospital district the power to acquire and lease out hospitals in a defined geographic area, and “contemplates anticompetitive effects, including just the sort of anticompetitive conduct challenged here.”  In their questions during oral argument, the Justices focused almost entirely on where they are to find within the state statutory scheme the clear articulation by the Georgia legislature of a state policy authorizing the Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County to acquire a hospital when doing so would be anticompetitive.  The Assistant Solicitor General of the United States, arguing for petitioner FTC, contended that no such authorization exists—that the relevant statutes do no more than convey a general power to acquire hospitals that is equivalent to that of all other hospitals, i.e., a power limited by the antitrust laws.  “The most natural understanding” of the statutes, petitioner’s counsel argued, “is that the state expects them to be exercised in conformity with the background principles that bind everybody.” 

Counsel for the respondent hospitals (himself a former Solicitor General of the United States) replied that the state policy to supplant antitrust restrictions is, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, reasonably foreseeable from “the context of the law as a whole.”  He pointed to the overall statutory scheme that replaces a pure market model with one that places mandates on the Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County to provide services, within a defined area, to the indigent population, to price on a not-for-profit basis, to have limits on its rate of return, to “acquire hospitals, plural” and other factors.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will give both states and lawyers counseling clients more guidance on the applicability of the state action doctrine and the antitrust immunity it provides as the number of public/private collaborations and acquisitions increases.  However, it is unlikely to result in any meaningful changes in the way hospitals approach acquisitions.  If the Supreme Court reverses the 11th Circuit, there will likely be more efforts, from both sides, to seek amendments to current laws to clarify whether the state intends to displace competition and thereby make the applicability of state action immunity explicit.  Thus, the battle over application of the state action doctrine may move from the courts to the legislature. 

Until the Supreme Court rules, hospitals should be mindful of the scope of and powers conferred by the government-owned or -operated hospital’s enabling legislation, as well as their federal circuit court of appeal’s construction and applicability of the state action immunity doctrine.

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Carrie G. Amezcua, McDermott WIll Emery law Firm, Antitrust attorney
Associate

Carrie G. Amezcua is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C. office.  As a member of the Antitrust and Competition practice group, she focuses her practice on antitrust litigation.

202-756-8309

About the Author

Jeffrey W. Brennan, McDermott Will Emery Law Firm, Antitrust Attorney
Partner

Jeffrey W. Brennan is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office.  He focuses his practice on mergers, litigation, government investigations and counseling, with extensive experience across a broad range of industries, including the health care sector. 

202-756-8127
Partner

Ashley Fischer is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP based in its Chicago office.  She is a member of the Health Industry Advisory Group.

312-984-7766

About the Author

Partner

David Marx, Jr. is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP based in the Firm’s Chicago office, where he serves as head of the Firm's Chicago Antitrust & Competition Practice Group.  His practice focuses on civil and criminal antitrust litigation and counseling, distribution issues and trade regulation matters.   He also counsels corporate and health care industry clients, and individuals who are the subjects or targets of investigations or enforcement proceedings initiated by federal or state antitrust agencies, as well as parties in...

312 984 7668

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.