FTC Staff Advises Maryland Physician-Hospital Organization That it Will Not Recommend Antitrust Challenge to Proposal to Provide Member Physicians Services Through Clinical Integration Program

The Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition has advised TriState Health Partners, Inc. (TriState), a physician-hospital organization based in Hagerstown, Maryland, that staff has no present intention to recommend that the Commission challenge the organization’s proposed clinical integration program, which would include joint contracting by its members with health plans and self-insured employers. The staff concluded that the proposed cooperation among doctors and a hospital has the potential to lower health care costs and improve quality of care.

TriState requested the advisory opinion concerning its proposal to integrate and coordinate the provision of medical care services to patients by TriState’s more than 200 physician members, as well as with the Washington County Hospital, also a participant in the proposed program. Under the advisory opinion process, FTC staff reviews proposed business conduct. Staff explains how it would analyze the legality of the conduct and whether it would recommend challenging the conduct.

As TriState describes its program, it will attempt to coordinate care provided to patients under the program, and seek to both improve quality and reduce the costs of care. Under the program, physicians will be subject to a variety of requirements regarding their performance, including adherence to clinical practice guidelines being developed by TriState’s participants. Physicians also must make certain financial and personal contributions of time and effort toward the success of the program, such as working on various committees, or helping to monitor their peers’ performance and working with them to modify any performance deficiencies.

Physicians generally will be required to use other providers within the network when making needed referrals, and the program will monitor and oversee physicians’ performance in following best practice standards and in meeting both individual and group performance goals and benchmarks. The proposed program will make extensive use of a Web-based health information technology system, including electronic health records, to help identify patients and providers where various interventions would be most productive in improving care and patient outcomes, and to facilitate those interventions.

TriState’s program will be non-exclusive, so that purchasers and payers who do not wish to buy it will be free to contract directly with TriState’s individual participants, should they choose to do so. Likewise, access to the services of Washington County Hospital will not be tied to the TriState program, but will be separately available to purchasers and payers. TriState also will implement various information protections in its program’s operation to minimize the possibility of any anticompetitive effects in the market outside the program.

The staff opinion letter, dated April 13, 2009, was signed by Markus H. Meier, Assistant Director of the Health Care Division of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. It concludes that the “integration among the participating physicians in the program . . . appears to have the potential to result in significant efficiencies, both in terms of cost and quality, in the delivery of medical services to patients covered under payer contracts for the program.”

The letter also states that “TriState’s joint negotiation of contracts, including price terms, with payers on behalf of its physician members” appears to be “subordinate and reasonably related to Tristate’s members’ . . . integration through the proposed program, and appears reasonably necessary to achieve the potential efficiencies of that program.” Thus, the price agreements and joint contracting would be evaluated under the antitrust rule of reason, rather than being summarily condemned as per se illegal price fixing.

Finally, the letter concludes that, if the program is operated as proposed, TriState “is unlikely to be able to attain, increase, or exercise market power for itself or its participants as a result of implementing the proposed program.” The staff therefore stated that they had no present intention to recommend that the Commission pursue any law enforcement action against TriState if it proceeded to implement the proposed program. However, the letter also cautions that any evidence of exercise of market power or other anticompetitive activities by TriState would raise antitrust concerns and could result in the revocation of the opinion.

Copies of the opinion letter are available on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/staff/090413tristateaoletter.pdf.

NOTE: This letter sets out the views of the staff of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, as authorized by §§ 1.1-1.4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. It has not been reviewed or approved by the Commission. As the Commission’s Rules explain, the staff’s advice is rendered “without prejudice to the right of the Commission later to rescind the advice and, where appropriate, to commence an enforcement proceeding.”

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to [email protected], or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Room 383, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read “Competition Counts” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

(TriState.final.wpd)

FTC Staff Advises Maryland Physician-Hospital Organization That it Will Not Recommend Antitrust Challenge to Proposal to Provide Member Physicians Services Through Clinical Integration Program

The Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition has advised TriState Health Partners, Inc. (TriState), a physician-hospital organization based in Hagerstown, Maryland, that staff has no present intention to recommend that the Commission challenge the organization’s proposed clinical integration program, which would include joint contracting by its members with health plans and self-insured employers. The staff concluded that the proposed cooperation among doctors and a hospital has the potential to lower health care costs and improve quality of care.

TriState requested the advisory opinion concerning its proposal to integrate and coordinate the provision of medical care services to patients by TriState’s more than 200 physician members, as well as with the Washington County Hospital, also a participant in the proposed program. Under the advisory opinion process, FTC staff reviews proposed business conduct. Staff explains how it would analyze the legality of the conduct and whether it would recommend challenging the conduct.

As TriState describes its program, it will attempt to coordinate care provided to patients under the program, and seek to both improve quality and reduce the costs of care. Under the program, physicians will be subject to a variety of requirements regarding their performance, including adherence to clinical practice guidelines being developed by TriState’s participants. Physicians also must make certain financial and personal contributions of time and effort toward the success of the program, such as working on various committees, or helping to monitor their peers’ performance and working with them to modify any performance deficiencies.

Physicians generally will be required to use other providers within the network when making needed referrals, and the program will monitor and oversee physicians’ performance in following best practice standards and in meeting both individual and group performance goals and benchmarks. The proposed program will make extensive use of a Web-based health information technology system, including electronic health records, to help identify patients and providers where various interventions would be most productive in improving care and patient outcomes, and to facilitate those interventions.

TriState’s program will be non-exclusive, so that purchasers and payers who do not wish to buy it will be free to contract directly with TriState’s individual participants, should they choose to do so. Likewise, access to the services of Washington County Hospital will not be tied to the TriState program, but will be separately available to purchasers and payers. TriState also will implement various information protections in its program’s operation to minimize the possibility of any anticompetitive effects in the market outside the program.

The staff opinion letter, dated April 13, 2009, was signed by Markus H. Meier, Assistant Director of the Health Care Division of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. It concludes that the “integration among the participating physicians in the program . . . appears to have the potential to result in significant efficiencies, both in terms of cost and quality, in the delivery of medical services to patients covered under payer contracts for the program.”

The letter also states that “TriState’s joint negotiation of contracts, including price terms, with payers on behalf of its physician members” appears to be “subordinate and reasonably related to Tristate’s members’ . . . integration through the proposed program, and appears reasonably necessary to achieve the potential efficiencies of that program.” Thus, the price agreements and joint contracting would be evaluated under the antitrust rule of reason, rather than being summarily condemned as per se illegal price fixing.

Finally, the letter concludes that, if the program is operated as proposed, TriState “is unlikely to be able to attain, increase, or exercise market power for itself or its participants as a result of implementing the proposed program.” The staff therefore stated that they had no present intention to recommend that the Commission pursue any law enforcement action against TriState if it proceeded to implement the proposed program. However, the letter also cautions that any evidence of exercise of market power or other anticompetitive activities by TriState would raise antitrust concerns and could result in the revocation of the opinion.

Copies of the opinion letter are available on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/staff/090413tristateaoletter.pdf.

NOTE: This letter sets out the views of the staff of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, as authorized by §§ 1.1-1.4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. It has not been reviewed or approved by the Commission. As the Commission’s Rules explain, the staff’s advice is rendered “without prejudice to the right of the Commission later to rescind the advice and, where appropriate, to commence an enforcement proceeding.”

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to [email protected], or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Room 383, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read “Competition Counts” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

(TriState.final.wpd)

FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz Appoints Senior Staff

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz has appointed six senior staff members with extensive experience in the private sector, in the public interest community, in academia, and in government.

“We’re delighted to attract such a talented and creative group of people,” Leibowitz said. “Their leadership and expertise will help ensure that the Commission’s work on behalf of American consumers will continue to be effective. We’re very fortunate.”

Richard A. Feinstein, who was appointed Director of the Bureau of Competition, is rejoining the agency from a partnership at Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, where he focused on antitrust litigation and counseling. He was formerly an Assistant Director in the Bureau of Competition’s Health Care Services and Products Division, focusing on antitrust enforcement, including anticompetitive practices and mergers involving health care providers and payers, and anticompetitive conduct in the pharmaceutical industry. Feinstein worked previously at McKenna & Cuneo, LLP, and he was a trial attorney and supervisor in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

David C. Vladeck, who will serve as Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, has been a Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, teaching federal courts, government processes, civil procedure, and First Amendment litigation. He co-directed the Center’s Institute for Public Representation, a clinical law program for civil rights, civil liberties, First Amendment, open government, and regulatory litigation. Vladeck previously spent almost 30 years with Public Citizen Litigation Group, including 10 years as Director. He has argued a number of First Amendment and civil rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and more than 60 cases before the federal courts of appeal and state courts of last resort.

Joseph Farrell, who was named Director of the Bureau of Economics, has been a Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has been Chair of the Competition Policy Center and an Affiliated Professor in the Haas School of Business. He also has served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief Economist for the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and as Chief Economist for the Federal Communications Commission. His research has centered on competition policy, compatibility standards, and innovation. Farrell is a Fellow of the Econometric Society.

Susan S. DeSanti, who will be Director of Policy Planning, joins the Commission from Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, where her practice has focused on antitrust counseling and litigation in a variety of industries. She previously spent 15 years at the Commission, during which she helped develop federal antitrust policy in standard setting, intellectual property licensing, antitrust and patent issues, generic drug entry, mergers, and joint ventures among competitors. During that time, she served in a variety of positions, including Director of Policy Planning, Deputy General Counsel for Policy Studies, senior attorney advisor to Chairman Robert Pitofsky, and attorney advisor to Commissioner Dennis Yao. In addition to several years in private practice before she joined the Commission, DeSanti recently served as Senior Counsel to the Antitrust Modernization Commission.

Jeanne Bumpus, who was re-appointed as Director of the Office of Congressional Relations, has served in that position since June 2006. She was a principal advisor to Senator John McCain and served as Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Bumpus began her work on Capitol Hill in the office of Washington State Senator Slade Gorton, where she served as Legislative Counsel. Earlier, she worked as an associate in the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine in Seattle, Washington.

Joni Lupovitz, who will serve as Chief of Staff to the Chairman, joined the FTC in 1999 as an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection’s Division of Enforcement and was promoted to Assistant Director for Enforcement the following year. Since 2005, she has served as an attorney advisor in the Office of Commissioner (now Chairman) Leibowitz, focusing on consumer protection matters. Before joining the FTC, Lupovitz was a partner with McDermott, Will & Emery, where she had a diverse civil litigation and administrative practice.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(SeniorStaff)

Commission Approves Final Consent Order in Matter of National Association of Music Merchants, Inc.

For Your Information

Following a public comment period, the Commission has approved a final consent order in the matter of National Association of Music Merchants, Inc. (NAMM). The vote approving the final order was 4-0. (FTC File No. 001-0203; the staff contact is William Lanning, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-3361; see press release dated March 4, 2009, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/namm.shtm.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI 18.2009.wpd)

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

Commission Approves Final Consent Order in Matter of National Association of Music Merchants, Inc.

For Your Information

Following a public comment period, the Commission has approved a final consent order in the matter of National Association of Music Merchants, Inc. (NAMM). The vote approving the final order was 4-0. (FTC File No. 001-0203; the staff contact is William Lanning, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-3361; see press release dated March 4, 2009, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/namm.shtm.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI 18.2009.wpd)

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

Commission Approves Final Consent Order in Matter of Lubrizol Corporation and Lockhart Company

– Following a public comment period, the Commission has approved a final consent order in the matter of Lubrizol Corporation and Lockhart Company. The vote approving the final order was 4-0. (FTC File No. 071-0230; the staff contact is Leonard L. Gordon, FTC Northeast Region, New York, 212-607-2829; see press release dated February 26, 2009, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/02/lubrizol.shtm.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI 17.2009.wpd)

Commission Approves Final Consent Order in Matter of Lubrizol Corporation and Lockhart Company

– Following a public comment period, the Commission has approved a final consent order in the matter of Lubrizol Corporation and Lockhart Company. The vote approving the final order was 4-0. (FTC File No. 071-0230; the staff contact is Leonard L. Gordon, FTC Northeast Region, New York, 212-607-2829; see press release dated February 26, 2009, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/02/lubrizol.shtm.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI 17.2009.wpd)

Court Halts Counterfeit Check and Prize Scam

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal court has ordered a permanent halt to a lottery and prize-promotion scam that used counterfeit cashier’s checks and false promises of large cash prizes to bilk consumers out of thousands of dollars each. The court’s order includes a $1 million judgment against the operators of the scam.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants mailed letters congratulating consumers on winning a lottery or sweepstakes, and enclosed a fake check. They told consumers the check was for taxes or fees that had to be paid before the “winnings” were paid out. Consumers were instructed to deposit the check and wire back a portion of the proceeds. Prize winnings supposedly ranged from $250,000 to $750,000.

In the letters, consumers were told to call a phone number for directions on how to claim their winnings. The defendants’ bogus telephone operators instructed consumers to deposit the check in their bank account and send a MoneyGram wire transfer to cover the fees or taxes supposedly associated with their “winnings.” Consumers deposited the checks and wired the money, only to learn that the original checks were counterfeit and they were out any money they wired to pay the “fees.” In some cases, instead of receiving a letter and counterfeit check, consumers were cold-called by telemarketers who persuaded them to send the taxes or fees in order to receive their prize winnings. In both scenarios, consumers received nothing, despite the fact that some consumers sent in payments of as much as $24,000 for “fees.”

In addition to ordering the defendants to turn over ill-gotten gains, which the FTC will return to the consumers harmed if feasible, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the FTC’s request for a permanent injunction barring the defendants from engaging in further deception. In issuing its ruling, the court ruled that the companies, Cash Corner Services, Inc., Family Choice Store, Inc., and their principals, Odowa Roland Okuomose and Evelyn Okuomose, based in British Columbia, Canada, had violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule, including the Rule’s Do Not Call provisions.

In an earlier decision in November 2007, the court preliminarily halted the counterfeit check scam and froze the defendants’ assets.

The case was coordinated under Project Emptor, the British Columbia Telemarketing Task Force, which includes the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority of British Columbia, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Competition Bureau, the FTC’s Northwest Region, the FBI’s Los Angeles office, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

To assist the FTC’s foreign partners, the FTC staff employed the U.S. SAFE WEB Act. Passed by Congress in 2006, the Act recognizes that practices harmful to consumers, such as telemarketing and mail fraud, are increasingly global in scope, and it strengthens the FTC’s ability to cooperate with foreign counterparts in combating these practices. Specifically in this matter, the Act permitted the FTC staff to share key information obtained in the FTC investigation with Canadian partners for use in the related Canadian law enforcement investigation and proceeding.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. 072-3087)
(Civil Action No. C07-1755-RSM (W.D. Wa)

Court Halts Counterfeit Check and Prize Scam

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal court has ordered a permanent halt to a lottery and prize-promotion scam that used counterfeit cashier’s checks and false promises of large cash prizes to bilk consumers out of thousands of dollars each. The court’s order includes a $1 million judgment against the operators of the scam.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants mailed letters congratulating consumers on winning a lottery or sweepstakes, and enclosed a fake check. They told consumers the check was for taxes or fees that had to be paid before the “winnings” were paid out. Consumers were instructed to deposit the check and wire back a portion of the proceeds. Prize winnings supposedly ranged from $250,000 to $750,000.

In the letters, consumers were told to call a phone number for directions on how to claim their winnings. The defendants’ bogus telephone operators instructed consumers to deposit the check in their bank account and send a MoneyGram wire transfer to cover the fees or taxes supposedly associated with their “winnings.” Consumers deposited the checks and wired the money, only to learn that the original checks were counterfeit and they were out any money they wired to pay the “fees.” In some cases, instead of receiving a letter and counterfeit check, consumers were cold-called by telemarketers who persuaded them to send the taxes or fees in order to receive their prize winnings. In both scenarios, consumers received nothing, despite the fact that some consumers sent in payments of as much as $24,000 for “fees.”

In addition to ordering the defendants to turn over ill-gotten gains, which the FTC will return to the consumers harmed if feasible, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the FTC’s request for a permanent injunction barring the defendants from engaging in further deception. In issuing its ruling, the court ruled that the companies, Cash Corner Services, Inc., Family Choice Store, Inc., and their principals, Odowa Roland Okuomose and Evelyn Okuomose, based in British Columbia, Canada, had violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule, including the Rule’s Do Not Call provisions.

In an earlier decision in November 2007, the court preliminarily halted the counterfeit check scam and froze the defendants’ assets.

The case was coordinated under Project Emptor, the British Columbia Telemarketing Task Force, which includes the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority of British Columbia, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Competition Bureau, the FTC’s Northwest Region, the FBI’s Los Angeles office, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

To assist the FTC’s foreign partners, the FTC staff employed the U.S. SAFE WEB Act. Passed by Congress in 2006, the Act recognizes that practices harmful to consumers, such as telemarketing and mail fraud, are increasingly global in scope, and it strengthens the FTC’s ability to cooperate with foreign counterparts in combating these practices. Specifically in this matter, the Act permitted the FTC staff to share key information obtained in the FTC investigation with Canadian partners for use in the related Canadian law enforcement investigation and proceeding.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. 072-3087)
(Civil Action No. C07-1755-RSM (W.D. Wa)

Public Hearing in Berkeley, California, to Focus on Intellectual Property

The Federal Trade Commission today announced the fifth and final hearing in a series exploring the evolving market for intellectual property. This hearing will be held May 4-5, 2009, on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley, in cooperation with the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology [http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/] and the Berkeley Competition Policy Center [http://iber.berkeley.edu/cpc/]. It will explore how markets for patents and technology operate in different industries, whether those markets operate efficiently, and how patent policy might be adjusted to respond to problems in those markets in order to better promote innovation and competition.

This hearing is part of an ongoing series examining changes in patent law, patent-related business models, and new learning about the operation of markets for IP and technology since the October 2003 Commission report on the patent system, “To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy.” [http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf]

The hearing will be held at the Haas School of Business, Wells Fargo Room, 2220 Piedmont Avenue, Berkeley, California. It is free and open to the public. Registration is not required. An agenda is available on the hearings Web site [http://www.ftc.gov/bc/workshops/ipmarketplace] and as a link to this press release.

The Commission is seeking public comments on all issues discussed throughout the entire series of hearings, and in response to any of the topics raised in the Federal Register notice announcement for the project. Comments must be received by May 15, 2009, and should refer to “Evolving IP Marketplace – P093900.” The Federal Register notice and information on how to submit written and electronic comments to the Commission are available at the Web site for the hearings, http://www.ftc.gov/bc/workshops/ipmarketplace.

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI data security)