Skip to main content

Displaying 101 - 120 of 205

The Penn State Hershey Medical Center/PinnacleHealth System, In the Matter of

The Commission issued an administrative complaint alleging that the combination of Penn State Hershey Medical Center and PinnacleHealth System would substantially reduce competition for general acute care inpatient hospital services in the area surrounding Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and lead to reduced quality and higher health care costs for the area’s employers and residents.  The Commission also authorized staff to file a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending the outcome of its administrative proceeding.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
141 0191
Docket Number
9368

Penn State Hershey Medical Center, FTC and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v.

The FTC issued an administrative complaint and authorized staff to file a preliminary injunction to block Penn State Hershey Medical Center's proposed merger with PinnacleHealth System. The complaint alleged that combining the two health care providers would substantially reduce competition for general acute care inpatient hospital services sold to commercial health plans iin four south-central Pennsylvania counties, leading to reduced quality and higher prices for employers and residents. 

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
141 0191
D09368

Cabell Huntington Hospital/St. Mary's Medical Center, In the Matter of

The Commission filed an administrative complaint alleging that Cabell Huntington Hospital’s proposed acquisition of St. Mary’s Medical Center – two hospitals located three miles apart in Huntington, West Virginia--would create a dominant firm with a near monopoly over general acute care inpatient hospital services and outpatient surgical services in the adjacent counties of Cabell, Wayne, and Lincoln, West Virginia and Lawrence County, Ohio likely leading to higher prices and lower quality of care than would be the case without the acquisition. The Commission also authorized staff to seek a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending the outcome of the administrative proceeding.  On March 24, 2016, the Commission withdrew the matter from adjudication.  On July 6, 2016, the Commission returned the matter to adjudication and dismiss the complaint without prejudice and issued a statement.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
141 0218
Docket Number
9366

FTC Staff Comment to the West Virginia House of Delegates Regarding SB 597 and the Competitive Implications of Provisions Regarding "Cooperative Agreements" Between -- and Possible Exemptions From the Federal Antitrust Laws For -- Health Care Providers

Date
Matter Number
V160007
FTC staff submitted a comment, in response to a request from West Virginia State Delegate Mike Pushkin, on the competitive impact of provisions in proposed legislation that would provide for...

Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., Phoebe North, Inc., HCA Inc., Palmyra Park Hospital, Inc., and Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County, In the Matter of

On 4/20/2011, the FTC challenged Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.’s (Phoebe’s) proposed acquisition of rival Palmyra Park Hospital, Inc. (Palmyra) from HCA, in Albany, Georgia. The FTC’s administrative complaint alleges that the deal will reduce competition significantly and allow the combined Phoebe/Palmyra to raise prices for general acute-care hospital services charged to commercial health plans, substantially harming patients and local employers and employees. The FTC also alleges that Phoebe has structured the deal in a way that uses the Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County (the Authority) in an attempt to shield the anticompetitive acquisition from federal antitrust scrutiny under the “state action” doctrine. The FTC’s staff, together with the Attorney General of the State of Georgia, filed a separate complaint in federal district court in Albany, Georgia, seeking an order to halt any transaction involving Phoebe, the Authority, or Palmyra, under which Phoebe would acquire control of Palmyra’s operations, until the conclusion of the FTC’s administrative proceeding and any subsequent appeals. On 2/19/2013, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded further proceedings.  On June 27, 2011, the district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that the transaction was protected by the state action doctrine.  On December 14, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.  In February 2013, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the state of Georgia had not clearly articulated a policy that would permit the Hospital Authority to approve anticompetitive mergers.

On 3/14/2013, the Commission issued an order granting complaint counsels motion to lift the stay on administrative proceedings. On 4/9/2013, an amended complaint and renewed motions for a PI and TRO were filed in federal district court in Georgia, pending an 8/5/2013 administrative trial. On 5/15/2013, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted the FTC’s motion for a temporary restraining order. On 6/25/2013, the Commission granted the motion to withdraw the matter from Part III, and accepted for public comment a proposed settlement of its charges. Due to the unique circumstances of the Certificate of Need (CON) laws in Georgia, the Commission originally believed it was unable to require that the hospitals become independent competitors. On 9/5/2014, based on public comments received, as well as other information, the Commission determined that Georgia’s CON laws may not preclude structural relief, and voted to withdraw its acceptance of the proposed consent agreement and return the matter to administrative litigation. On 3/31/15, the FTC entered into a settlement agreement requiring Phoebe Putney and the Hospital Authority must notify the FTC in advance of acquiring any part of a hospital or a controlling interest in other healthcare providers in the Albany, Georgia area for the next 10 years, and prohibiting them from objecting to regulatory applications made by potential new hospital providers in the same area for up to five years. The settlement is similar to the one proposed in 2013 and does not require structural relief.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
111 0067
Docket Number
9348

Community Health Systems and Health Management Associates, In the Matter of

Under a proposed settlement, CHS will sell the Riverview Regional Medical Center and all of its associated operations and businesses near Gadsden, Alabama, and the Carolina Pines Regional Medical Center and of its associated operations and businesses near Hartsville, South Carolina, to Commission-approved buyers within six months after the order is issued. The divestitures resolve Commission charges that the combination would likely substantially lessen competition for general acute care (GAC) inpatient services sold to commercial health plans and provided to commercially insured patients in two local markets: 1) Etowah County, including the city of Gadsden, Alabama; and 2) Darlington County, South Carolina.  Absent relief, CHS’s acquisition of HMA would eliminate valuable price and quality competition that has benefitted local patients in these two markets.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
131 0202
C-4427

H.I.G. Bayside Debt, et al., In the Matter of

The FTC required Surgery Center Holdings, Inc., known as Surgery Partners, and Symbion Holdings Corporation, to divest Symbion’s ownership interest in an ambulatory surgery center in Orange City, Florida to Dr. Mark W. Hollmann, as part of a settlement resolving charges that Surgery Partners’ $792 million purchase of Symbion would be anticompetitive. Both companies operate a large number of ambulatory surgery centers located throughout the country that sell and provide outpatient surgical services to commercial health plans and commercially insured patients. The proposed merger would have combined the only two multi-specialty ambulatory surgical centers in the Orange City/Deltona area of Florida, and would have left commercial health plans and commercially insured patients there with only one meaningful alternative to Surgery Partners’ outpatient surgical services.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
141 0183
C-4494