Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Learn about Richard Arnholt's diverse government contracts practice and why he chose to pursue a career in the legal field. Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2017, Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. (NASDAQ: PNFP) closed a $1.9 billion merger with BNC Bancorp (NASDAQ: BNCN) pursuant to which BNC merged with and into Pinnacle. With the completion of the transaction, Pinnacle becomes a Top 50 U.S. Bank. The merger will create a four state footprint concentrated in 12 of the largest urban markets in the Southeast. 

Bass, Berry & Sims has served Pinnacle as primary corporate and securities counsel for more than 15 years and served as counsel on the transaction. Our attorneys were involved in all aspects related to the agreement, including tax, employee benefits and litigation. 

Read more details about the transaction here.

Pinnacle Financial Partners logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Regulation A+

It seems that lately there has been a noticeable uptick in Regulation A+ activity, including several recent Reg A+ securities offerings where the stock now successfully trades on national exchanges. In light of this activity, we have published a set of FAQs about Regulation A+ securities offerings to help companies better understand this "mini-IPO" offering process, as well as pros and cons compared to a traditional underwritten IPO.

Read now

Antitrust Agencies Continue Pursuit of Improper Joint Contracting by Providers

Publications

April 18, 2013

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division ("DOJ") continue to pursue competing providers that are not clinically or financially integrated but nevertheless attempt to jointly negotiate contracts with payors. In January of this year, the DOJ pursued price-fixing charges against an independent physicians association ("IPA") allegedly including 350 competing chiropractors in Oklahoma. The DOJ alleged that the IPA comprised 45% of the chiropractors in Oklahoma. Allegedly, from 2004 to 2011, the IPA negotiated seven payor contracts that fixed prices for chiropractic services. The DOJ found particularly troubling a mandatory membership agreement that, among other things, required members to suspend any existing contracts with payors upon joining the IPA and that required members not to accept a reimbursement rate below a stated rate. The IPA's website also supported the DOJ's position that the IPA was not clinically or financially integrated as the website stated that members could continue as "an individual practice while associating with other chiropractors to increase contract-negotiating power." As a result, the DOJ charged that the IPA was engaged in price fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The IPA entered into a settlement agreement prohibiting any future negotiations with payors on behalf of its members.

In February, eight independent nephrologists in Puerto Rico settled FTC charges that they illegally collectively bargained with insurers and refused to treat health plan patients when their price demands were rebuffed. The FTC's complaint alleged that the nephrologists practiced independently and represented 90% of the nephrologists in Puerto Rico's southwest region. According to the FTC's complaint, the eight doctors violated federal antitrust laws since late 2011 by 1) collectively negotiating and fixing the prices upon which they would contract to extract higher reimbursement rates, and 2) collectively terminating their contracts with and refusing to treat patients when the payor refused to meet their terms. Under a proposed order settling the FTC's charges, the doctors are barred from jointly negotiating prices, jointly refusing to deal with any insurer, and jointly refusing to treat patients.

This month, the DOJ filed a complaint against an association of 300 chiropractors that allegedly comprised 80% of the chiropractors in South Dakota. The complaint alleged that the association negotiated at least seven payor contracts on behalf of its competing members who were not financially or clinically integrated. Accordingly, the DOJ asserted that the joint negotiations illegally fixed prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The DOJ cited the membership agreement that required members to allow the association to negotiate rates on behalf of its members and alleged that an explicit goal of the association was to leverage its contracts with the members in order to obtain higher fees from payors. A proposed settlement, among other things, prohibits the association from negotiating contracts on behalf of its members.

The Bottom Line

All three of these recent actions demonstrate the enforcement agencies' continued commitment to pursuing illegal agreements, such as price fixing, that increase the cost of healthcare. The actions also reinforce the long-standing position of the agencies that competing providers may not jointly negotiate prices with payors unless they are sufficiently integrated – either financially or clinically.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.