Phoebe Putney Case

953 Words4 Pages

Summary of Facts
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Background. In an attempt to increase access to affordable care, the Hospital Authority Law, in Georgia (GA), states that “hospital authorities” can be developed to provide healthcare services in multiple counties. These hospital authorities can acquire, purchase, and lease multiple healthcare facilities. However, all actions of the hospital authority must benefit the community it serves. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital is owned by the Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County (Authority). This is one of the two hospitals in the county. Facts. The Authority purchased the second hospital in the county and leased its management to one of its subsidiaries, Phoebe Putney Health …show more content…

In response, the Board moved to dismiss the action grounded on claiming antitrust immunity. The Board argued that, as a state agency, it was exempt from antitrust laws. However, the FTC responded pointing out that antitrust immunity does not apply in this case because of the structure of the Board’s members. As the Board could not bring proof of active supervisor from the state, the court supported FTC’s claim.
Relevant Laws
US Antitrust Laws The main purpose of US antitrust laws is to safeguard competitive business strategies to ensure that consumers do not experience undeserving high prices and low-quality products. These laws aim to impose incentives for businesses that function to maintain an equal price/quality ratio. There are three US antitrust laws: the Sherman Act, the FTC Act, and the Clayton Act. This particular case involves the FTC Act. Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC Act was developed to employ the FTC. The FTC Act forbids engaging in unethical methods of marketplace competition and unfair or dishonest actions that would directly affect commerce. Antitrust Immunity. In order for antitrust immunity to be granted, an agency must be actively regulated by the state when the majority of its voting members are industry contributors for the profession the agency …show more content…

Unlike granting immunity to the Authority, granting immunity to the Board would allow only licensed dentist to control the market for teeth-whitening which would have a large impact on the cost the teeth-whitening services for consumers. If the Board identified a need for teeth-whitening to be administered and monitored by a licensed professional, it would have better served them to amend the DPA in NC before sending cease and desist letters. Based on personal review of the research on over the counter (OTC) teeth-whitening products, I do see a need for the national dental board to have some oversight or regulation of OTC teeth-whitening

Open Document