Re: Health Care
From: Richard Chudacoff (rchudacoff@mylinuxisp.com)
Tue Jul 28 13:51:23 2009
Exactly Joe
--
Richard Chudacoff, MD, FACOG
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 28, 2009, at 9:07 AM, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/28/09 8:11:24 AM, evsono@pipeline.com writes:
>
>> With the 1970's Supreme Court decision Goldfarb v Va State Bar,
>> physicians basically lost the ability to bargain collectively.
>
> Actually, what Goldfarb did was to get the Court to opine that
> Congress did not intend any sweeping "learned profession" exclusion
> from the Sherman Act. The case was about lawyers, not doctors.
>
> The lawyers running a title examination scam wanted to say they
> weren't violating the anti-trust laws because they were a "learned
> profession," not part of "commerce." The Court said title exam work
> is a service, and the exchange of such a service for money is
> "commerce" in the common usage of that term.
>
> So the upshot is, "learned professions" can be prosecuted under the
> anti-trust laws for price-fixing and other anti-competitive
> activities. Here, it wasn't just an informal (or even formal)
> association of title attorneys. The schedule and its enforcement
> mechanism constituted price fixing since the record showed that the
> schedule, rather than being purely advisory, operated as a fixed,
> rigid price floor. The fee schedule was enforced through the
> prospect of professional discipline by the State Bar, by reason of
> attorneys' desire to comply with announced professional norms, and
> by the assurance that other lawyers would not compete by
> underbidding. In other words, the State Bar was "in on it" via the
> disciplinary process.
>
> Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975).
>
> I wonder how many MEDICAL boards are "in on it?" I'm absolutely sure
> a lot of "disruptive physician" cases are simply anti-competitive
> actions masked in administrative/quality assurance trappings. Et tu,
> Richard?
>
> Joe P.
>
> )
