United States: Supreme Court Limits State-Action Immunity In Hospital Merger

Last Updated: March 4 2013
Article by Thomas P. Brown and Emily Dodds Powell

On February 19, 2013, the Supreme Court visited a corner of the antitrust map that it last glimpsed during the Reagan Administration—the state action doctrine. The case that prompted this sojourn, FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.,1 arose when a hospital authority in Albany-Dougherty County, Georgia attempted to acquire the only other hospital that provided acute-care services in the county. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) challenged the merger, claiming that it would enable the hospital authority to raise prices for such services, but saw its case rebuffed when lower courts held that the state action doctrine shielded the hospital authority’s decision from antitrust scrutiny. A unanimous Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no “affirmative evidence” that the State of Georgia intended to authorize hospital authorities to engage in anticompetitive mergers.

State-Action Immunity

The state-action doctrine exempts the actions of state actors, typically local governments and other political subdivisions, from the federal antitrust laws when they act pursuant to a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy to displace competition. The doctrine proceeds from the premise that states acting in their sovereign capacity are immune from the federal antitrust laws and are generally permitted to impose market restraints “as an act of government.”2 It extends the principle of sovereign immunity to political entities created by the state (e.g., local governments or private entities) that carry out the state’s regulatory program.3 As the Supreme Court has previously explained, the doctrine protects conduct that (1) follows a policy “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” by the state and (2) is “actively supervised by the State.”4

The Proposed Merger and FTC Objections

Under a Georgia statute, counties and municipalities are authorized to create “hospital authorities” that can exercise public functions and have the power to acquire hospitals and other public health facilities.

The Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County (“Authority”) acquired Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital (“Memorial”) in 1941. In 2010, the Authority began discussions to acquire the only other hospital in the county, Palmyra Medical Center (“Palmyra”). Together, Memorial and Palmyra accounted for 86 percent of the relevant market for acute-care hospital services.

Shortly thereafter, the FTC issued an administrative complaint alleging that the proposed purchase would create a virtual monopoly and reduce competition in violation of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act5 and § 7 of the Clayton Act.6 The FTC then filed suit to enjoin the transaction. The district court dismissed the case at the outset, holding that the Authority was immune from antitrust liability under the state-action doctrine.7 On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court, reasoning that because the state legislature could have “reasonably anticipated” the challenged anticompetitive conduct, the Authority was entitled to immunity.8

The Supreme Court’s Opinion

The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision. Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, explained that because Georgia did not clearly articulate a state policy of displacing competition through hospital authorities, the Authority was not entitled to immunity under the state-action doctrine.

The Court held that the Eleventh Circuit stretched the concept of foreseeability too far. The “clear articulation” test requires an authorization to act or regulate in a way that is inherently anticompetitive, not just an authorization that could potentially result in anticompetitive behavior.9 For example, although hospital authorities are given the power to purchase other hospitals, they are also permitted to engage in many other types of conduct that have no potential to negatively affect competition. Even the power to acquire hospitals does not ordinarily produce anticompetitive effects. The possibility that a merger would occur and would reduce competition was insufficient to show that the State anticipated that its authorization would produce anticompetitive effects.10

Because the Authority failed to produce any clearly articulated evidence showing that the Georgia legislature sought to displace competition by consolidating hospital ownership, the Court determined that it had failed to show that these anticompetitive effects were “affirmatively contemplated” by the State.11 The powers granted to hospital authorities under the statute, including the ability to make and execute contracts, set rates, and borrow money, mirror general powers routinely conferred on private corporations.12 The Court said that at most, the statutory grant of power to hospital authorities reflected neutrality toward any purported “policy to allow hospital authorities to make acquisitions that substantially lessen competition,” and therefore did not pass the “clear articulation” test.13 The Court declined, however, to rule on a proposed “market participant” exception to immunity where an entity engages in proprietary activities.14

The Court acknowledged the Authority’s argument that it needed to consolidate in order to fulfill the State’s objective of providing affordable health care, but found that this was not sufficient to justify extension of the state-action immunity doctrine.15 That objective, while valid, did not logically suggest that the State intended hospital authorities to pursue that end by engaging in anticompetitive behavior. Even the State’s regulation of the industry and authorization of discrete forms of anticompetitive conduct, the Court explained, were insufficient to establish that the State affirmatively contemplated other forms of anticompetitive conduct.16

Impact of the Opinion

Phoebe Putney will almost certainly be hailed as a major victory for critics of the state action doctrine.17 The opinion observes that state-action immunity, like other antitrust exemptions, is disfavored. And the opinion offers what, on its face, appears to be a clear limitation on the scope of the exemption. Going forward, immunity from antitrust law will only attach when displacing competition is “the inherent, logical, or ordinary result of the exercise of authority delegated by the state legislature.”18

But initial reactions aside, this standard does not appear too difficult to meet. Indeed, the opinion suggests that an entity seeking immunity under the state-action doctrine need not even point to a statement in the legislative record demonstrating the state’s intent to displace competition. Rather, according to the Court, “state-action immunity applies if the anticompetitive effect was the ‘foreseeable result’ of what the State authorized.”19

Entities that believe their actions should be immune from antitrust treatment under the state-action doctrine should reevaluate the extent of the state’s delegation of authority and consider whether the entity’s contemplated conduct is an inherent, not just likely, effect. Where the effect on competition is obvious or where the entity can point to some evidence that the state intended to displace competition, it should have a relatively easy time claiming immunity from antitrust enforcement.

Footnotes

1 568 U.S. ---, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1064 (Feb. 19, 2013).

2 Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 350, 352 (1943).

3 Office of Policy Planning, Report of the State Action Task Force, at 6–7 (2003).

4 Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 105 (1980).

5 38 Stat. 719, 15 U.S.C. § 45.

6 38 Stat. 731, 15 U.S.C. § 18.

7 793 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1366–81 (2011).

8 663 F.3d 1369, 1375–76 (2011).

9 568 U.S. ---, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1064, at *23–29 (Feb. 19, 2013).

10 Id. at *27–29.

11 Id. at *20.

12 Id. at *20–21 (citing Ga. Code Ann. § 31-7-75).

13 Id. at *36.

14 Id. at *18 n.4.

15 Id. at *29–32.

16 Id. at *32–35.

17 Statements following the decision suggest as much. See, e.g., Statement of FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz on the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Favor of the Commission in the Phoebe Putney/Palmyra Park Hospital Case (Feb. 19, 2013), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/02/phoebe.shtm (“Today’s ruling is a big victory for consumers who want to see lower health care costs, and the Court’s opinion will ensure competition in a variety of other industries, as well.”).

18 568 U.S. ---, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1064, at *24.

19 Id. at *20.

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions