United States: U.S. District Court Denies FTC's Motion For A Preliminary Injunction Blocking Penn State Hershey / PinnacleHealth Hospital Merger

On May 9, 2016, U.S. District Judge John Jones III, of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, rejected a motion for preliminary injunction by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and the Pennsylvania Attorney General to halt the proposed merger between Penn State Hershey Medical Center ("Hershey") and PinnacleHealth System ("Pinnacle").  The Court's decision represents a potential setback for the FTC's enforcement against hospital consolidation around the country.  The opinion raises further questions about recent analyses endorsed by the agency and other federal courts when reviewing hospital mergers.  The Court has extended the temporary restraining order in effect until May 27, 2016, to allow the FTC and the Attorney General to seek relief from the 3d Circuit.

1. Historical background on FTC hospital merger enforcement.

From the 1980s into the early 1990s, the FTC successfully challenged several hospital mergers.  However, from the mid-1990s into the early 2000s—during a period of significant reorganization in the healthcare sector—both the FTC and Department of Justice repeatedly lost.  Courts, relying heavily on the Elzinga-Hogarty test, which evaluates the flow of patients in and out of proposed relevant markets, often concluded that, for example, the agency's proposed markets were overly narrow, allegations of increased market share too high, and allegations of patient harm unsustainable.1

In 2002, FTC Chairman Timothy Muris called for a retrospective by the agency on consummated mergers to evaluate the impact of hospital consolidation on pricing, patient care, and other important aspects of competition.2  This initiative, in consort with other parallel discussions looking at health care enforcement, demonstrated that the analytical approaches used did not properly reflect the commercial realities involved with hospital mergers.3

The initiative, for example, identified that courts' analyses of geographic markets led to overly broad markets that masked the anticompetitive effects of the mergers.4   Additionally, non-profit hospitals were found to potentially still use market power gained from a merger, rather than, as some courts and analysts believed, be constrained from doing so due to their public interest mission.5

Perhaps most important, the initiative indicated the need for a more flexible approach in evaluating hospital markets.  The FTC better understood that hospital competition typically occurs in two stages – first, hospitals compete to become part of a health plan; and, second, they compete for enrollees within a plan by providing superior service.  Thus, while a new focus on payers' relations with providers was a considerable departure from the FTC's prior focus on patient choice, as FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez noted in 2013, the old approach "ignored that patients generally do not pay directly for health care services and have little incentive to switch in the face of a price increase."6

The result of the analysis was a paradigm shift in the agency's thinking about how to analyze such mergers.  For example, the FTC began to employ the hypothetical-monopolist analysis from the Horizontal Merger Guidelines when defining geographic markets, as was done in the agency's successful challenge against the Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and Highland Park Hospital merger.7  The agency shifted the customer focus from the patient to the payer, arguing instead about the effect of the merged entity's increased leverage over third-party payers due to the reduced ability of payers to exclude hospitals from plans.8  The agency also put a greater emphasis on competitive effects, such as more strongly requiring merger efficiencies be merger-specific and non-speculative.9

These revised strategies largely contributed to a string of successful hospital merger challenges in Georgia10, Idaho11, Illinois12, Ohio13, and Pennsylvania14, among others.

2. The FTC's district court case against Hershey / Pinnacle.

The FTC expressed many of the same concerns it has raised in recent hospital deals in its challenge to the proposed Hershey-Pinnacle merger, including the impact of the merger on raising healthcare costs and reducing quality of care in the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area.15

Hershey is a 551-bed academic medical center in Hershey, Pennsylvania, is part of the Penn State College of Medicine, and offers a wide range of specialized and high-acuity services.  Hershey also operates Central Pennsylvania's only children's hospital, one of the state's three level I trauma centers, and the state's only heart-transplant center outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.  Pinnacle is a 646-bed three campus system focused on acute care in community hospitals, offering some but limited higher-level services, including open-heart surgery.16

The hospitals agreed to merge in June 2014 and notified the FTC in May 2015.  The FTC and the Pennsylvania Attorney General filed an administrative complaint in December 2015, contending the merger violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act.17  A separate action was also filed in district court to block the merger on the grounds that the merger would substantially reduce competition in the market for general acute care inpatient services sold to commercial health plans and their members.18  The FTC moved for a preliminary injunction to allow time for the administrative proceedings.19

In the district court action discussed here, the Court rejected the FTC's motion for a preliminary injunction.  Much of the Court's decision focused on market definition, which is common in hospital merger actions.  But the court also discussed proposed efficiencies from the merger and adopted positions contrary to commonly-supported FTC positions in recent hospital merger challenges.

a. Market definition.

The parties agreed that the product market should be defined as general acute services sold to commercial payers, which includes a cluster of medical and surgical services requiring at least a 24-hour stay at a hospital.20

The parties, however, disagreed on the geographic market.  The FTC argued the geographic market should be restricted to the Harrisburg area, where Pinnacle and Hershey are the primary hospital providers.  In support, the FTC contended that very few patients would travel outside of that area for acute-care services requiring hospitalization.21  The hospitals pushed back, arguing that the FTC's market was too narrow and disconnected from the commercial realities facing patients and payers.22

The Court agreed with the hospitals.  First, the Court found that a substantial number of Hershey and Pinnacle patients either reside in, or travel to the hospitals from, locations outside the Harrisburg area.  Second, over half of Hershey's revenue originates in patients traveling from outside the Harrisburg area.  And, third, there are 19 hospitals within 65 minutes of Harrisburg.  Consequently, and given the largely rural nature of the community, patients could see these other hospitals as realistic alternatives in the event that the Harrisburg area was monopolized and saw an increase in prices.23

The Court was also convinced that the hospitals had taken steps to ensure that post-merger rates did not increase with two of the area's biggest payers, CBC and Highmark.  Most notably, the hospitals executed a 5-year contract with Highmark, and a 10-year contract with CBC, requiring both that the hospitals continue to contract with the payers at existing rates for fee-for-service contracts, and preserve rate differentials between Pinnacle and Hershey.24  This is important as academic medical centers often have substantially higher rates than community hospitals, and merging Pinnacle into Hershey could yield the imposition of higher rates across-the-board.  The Court explained that it would be imprudent to block a merger based on predictions of what might happen to rates in five years.25

b. Efficiencies.

Having already rejected the FTC's case, the Court nonetheless discussed the claimed efficiencies associated with the merger and constraints on the hospitals' abilities to raise prices.26  In a Clayton 7 challenge, once the agency makes a prima facie showing that the combination could cause anticompetitive effects, the burden shifts to the defending hospitals to argue that on balance the merger would not cause harm to the market.  This can be achieved such as by showing that the merger creates merger-specific efficiencies that offset the anticompetitive effects.  Here, the Court identified three core positions, all in favor of the hospitals.

First, the Court noted that Hershey is capacity constrained, such that without the merger it would need to build a $277 million tower to increase the number of beds.  The Court explained that the investment would strain Hershey's financial resources—resulting in higher charges and lower quality investments—and negatively affect patients while the tower was in development. 27  By contrast, the Court explained that the merger would cause "near instantaneous benefits to Hershey's patients," and prevent "the outpouring of capital for the construction of the tower."28  The Court disagreed with the FTC's counter that Hershey could merely rely on grants and donations, and the Court further refused to second-guess the business judgment of Hershey executives that the tower was the viable alternative to a merger.29

Second, the Court noted that the market had already seen consolidation and extensive "repositioning," i.e., major business changes by entities seeking to provide more competitive or differentiated products.30  This is important as courts may sometimes treat, as was the case here, non-merging firms in the market as new entrants where the firms have repositioned their product lines.  The Court also noted that the extent of repositioning in Central Pennsylvania served as a direct competitive effort to erode the merging hospitals' patient base.31

Third, the Court recognized that a shift is underway across the country, affecting Hershey and Pinnacle as well, as the industry moves away from fee-for-service to risk-based contracting, where providers carry more of the financial risk over patient care.  For example, as the Court noted, by 2018, the federal government intends to shift over half of the federal government payments on health care to risk-sharing arrangements.  While the Court agreed with the FTC that the hospitals could independently operate on a risk-based model, the Court nonetheless agreed that the merged entity will be better able to spread out the costs of population health management as required for risk-sharing arrangements.32

3. Conclusion

The Court's ruling offers an unexpected departure from recent appraisals of hospital merger cases.

First, the Court appears to have preferred explanations about efficiencies gained through scale over the FTC's arguments that the merger would exacerbate concerns about capacity constraints and would not generate significant merger-specific efficiencies.  For instance, if the hospitals could effectively and independently engage in risk-sharing contracting, the merger seems unnecessary to effectuate value-based arrangements.  This would be consistent with the Ninth Circuit in Saint Alphonsus Medical Center-Nampa v. St. Luke's Health System, Ltd., where the panel affirmed the lower court's rejection of a merger-specific efficiency based on integrating a physician group into a larger network so as to be better positioned to transition to value-based care arrangements.33

The Court also appeared to support the notion that long-term rate cap contracts set by the parties with their biggest payers would mitigate concerns arising from the merged entity's increase in market power.  However, on the flip-side, such contracts can prevent competition from putting pressure downstream on providers to lower their rates.

The Court's comments on risk sharing raise another question as to whether particularized plans are actually needed to implement certain efficiencies.  Courts, including the Ninth Circuit in St. Luke's, have repeatedly rejected efficiencies that were not supported by substantive plans to achieve them.34  Yet, this Court's position could stand for the proposition that, in the absence of specific plans, hospitals need only prove that greater scale would help them better achieve risk sharing arrangements should they eventually pursue them, voluntarily or otherwise.

On May 10, 2016, the FTC and the State of Pennsylvania Attorney General's office asked the Court to enjoin the merger pending review of the Court's order by the 3d Circuit.  In response, the Court extended the current TRO for two weeks until May 27, 2016, to allow the FTC and the Attorney General to file an application with the 3d Circuit.

To read the Court's order and opinion, please click here.

Footnotes

1 See, e.g., Lisa J. Fales and Paul Feinstein, How to Turn a Losing Streak into Wins: The FTC and Hospital Merger Enforcement, 29 Antitrust 31 (Fall 2014).  See also FTC v. Tenet Health Care Corp., 186 F.3d 1045, 1053-54 (8th Cir. 1999); FTC v. Butterworth Health Corp., 946 F. Supp. 1285, 1292-93 (W.D. Mich. 1996), aff'd, 121 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 1997); FTC v. Freeman Hosp., 69 F.3d 260, 268-72 (8th Cir. 1995).

2 FTC Chairman Timothy Muris, Everything Old is New Again:  Health Care and Competition in the 21st Century, remarks before the 7th Annual Competition in Health Care Forum, at pg. 19 (Nov. 7, 2002), available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/everything-old-new-again-health-care-and-competition-21st-century/murishealthcarespeech0211.pdf.

3 See Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation, Competition in Hospital Services, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, at 12-20 (Feb. 8, 2012), available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-and-other-international-competition-fora/1202comphospitalservices.pdf ("OECD Paper").

4 See id. at 13-14.

5 See OECD Paper at 14.

6 Remarks, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, Retrospectives at the FTC: Promoting an Antitrust Agenda, ABA Retrospective Analysis of Agency Determinations in Merger Transactions Symposium, pg. 3 (June 28, 2013), available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/retrospectives-ftc-promoting-antitrust-agenda/130628aba-antitrust.pdf.

7 In the Matter of Evanston N.W. Healthcare Corp., No. 9315, Federal Trade Commission, 57-58 (Aug. 6, 2007) ("Evanston Opinion").  See also OECD Paper at 16-18.

8 See id. at 18-19; Fales et al. at 31.

9 See OECD Paper at 17.

10 FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1003, 1007 (2013).

11 St. Alphonsus Med. Ctr.-Nampa Inc. v. St. Luke's Health System, Ltd., 778 F.3d 775, 782 (9th Cir. 2015).

12 Evanston Opinion.

13 ProMedica Health System, Inc. v. FTC, 749 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2049 (2015).

14 In the Matter of Reading Health System, et al., No. 9353, Federal Trade Commission (Dec. 7, 2012) (Commission opinion).

15 FTC v. Penn State Hershey Med. Ctr., No. CV 1:15-CV-2362, Docket No. 101, ¶ 1 (filed as sealed Dec. 9, 2015, and unsealed Apr. 8, 2016) ("Hershey District Court Complaint").

16 FTC v. Penn State Hershey Med. Ctr., No. CV 1:15-CV-2362, 2016 WL 2622372, *1 (M.D. Pa. May 9, 2016).

17 In the Matter of the Penn State Hershey Medical Center et al., No. 9368, Federal Trade Commission (Dec. 14, 2015) (Administrative complaint).

18 Hershey District Court Complaint at ¶¶ 1-11, 23-24.  See generally FTC v. Penn State Hershey Med. Ctr., No. CV 1:15-CV-2362, Docket No. 82 (Mar. 7, 2016) (motion for preliminary injunction).

19 See Hershey, 2016 WL 2622372, at *1.

20 See id. at *3-4.

21 See id.

22 See id.

23 See id.

24 Id.

25 Id.

26 Id. at *5.

27 See id. at *6-*7.

28 See id.

29 See id.

30 See id. at *8.

31 See id.

32 See id. at 9*.

33 778 F.3d 775, 791 (9th Cir. 2015).

34 See, e.g., id. at 791-92.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist 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
Events from this Firm
21 Sep 2018, Conference, Florida, United States

Employment partner, Michael Weil will be participating in The Intellectual Property Law Institute’s 2018 Conference.

26 Sep 2018, Conference, New York, United States

Employment Partner, Mandy Perry and Chair of Orrick's Global Employment Law Practice, Mike Delikat will be participating in the Global Business Protections 2018: International Restrictive Covenants and Confidential Information Conference.

26 Sep 2018, Seminar, Tokyo, Japan

Orrick’s Global Japan Practice is hosting a series of “Orrick Library” seminars to explore legal issues in various fields in Japan as well as the United States, Asia and Europe

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.
Related Articles
 
Related Video
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