title: Ball Memorial Hospital: Section 2 Sherman Act analysis in the alternative health care delivery market.
abstract: In 1986, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Ball Memorial Hospital v. Mutual Hospital Insurance denied an injunction sought under the antitrust laws by the plaintiffs, eighty acute care hospitals, which would have precluded Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Indiana from implementing a Preferred Provider Organization. The Ball court used a conservative economic analysis to deny the injunction and failed to consider many industry-specific factors. This Note examines these factors and challenges the Ball court's position by arguing that antitrust scrutiny of alternative health care delivery markets must go beyond the court's narrow approach.
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Kirsch
mesh_terms: D054598:Blue Cross Blue Shield Insurance Plans / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004465:Economic Competition / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006761:Hospitals; D007196:Indiana; D007348:Insurance, Health / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D007350:Insurance, Hospitalization / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D007357:Insurance, Physician Services / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008484:Medicaid; D006278:Medicare; D011243:Preferred Provider Organizations / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States; D014485:United States Federal Trade Commission