Physician price fixing under the Sherman Act. An indirect test of the Maricopa issues.
The expression 'price fixing' usually indicates an attempt by competitors to put a floor under the minimum price they will charge. But a recent decision of the Supreme Court, Arizona v. Maricopa County, suggests that attempts to fix maximum prices are equally economically objectionable. In this paper I propose an explanation of simultaneous minimum and maximum price fixing. I also investigate empirically the distribution of physicians' fees in a closely related instance of alleged physician price fixing. The data reject any inference of successful price fixing, and instead conform to the usual predictions of the economics of costly market information.
D001130:Arizona; D054598:Blue Cross Blue Shield Insurance Plans / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003415:Crime; D004465:Economic Competition / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D004470:Economics, Medical; D005245:Fee Schedules / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005607:Fraud; D006801:Humans; D011907:Rate Setting and Review / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States; D014485:United States Federal Trade Commission