Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg 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

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Antitrust Agencies Continue Pursuit of Improper Joint Contracting by Providers


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


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.