Opinion No. 70-156 (1970) Ag

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that basing geographic market on patient flow data in a hospital, merger case “failed to properly account for the likely response of insurers in the face of a SSNIP”
• explaining that insurers “feel the impact of price increases” and that patient behavior “affects the relative bargaining positions of insurers and hospitals as they negotiate rates”
• holding Pennsylvania could enforce Clayton Act and directing entry of preliminary injunction requested by the FTC and the Commonwealth
• finding that the Government’s showing that the increase in market shares, market concentration, and percent of market controlled post-merger were clear indications that a merger had anticompetitive effects in the relevant market
• noting that antitrust defendant in theory “may be able to demonstrate that enough patients would buy a health plan ... with no in-network hospital in the proposed geographic market,” but not when an insurer that tried it “lost half of its membership”
• finding a geographic market definition correct even when 43.5% of a hospital’s patients came from outside the defined market

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).