United States: U.S. District Court Denies FTC's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Blocking Chicago-area Advocate Health / NorthShore Hospital Merger

On June 14, 2016, U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso, of the Northern District of Illinois, denied a motion for preliminary injunction by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and the Attorney General for the State of Illinois, seeking to block the proposed merger between Advocate Health Care and the NorthShore University Health System ("NorthShore") in the Chicago metropolitan area. 1 According to Judge Alonso's opinion released on June 20, the Plaintiffs failed to prove a relevant geographic market, the lack of which the Court deemed fatal to the Plaintiffs' case.2

This loss could be a blow for the FTC's health care competition enforcement program. It is the agency's second loss in district court this year in a hospital merger challenge. Additionally, as we noted in our May 13, 2016 blog post concerning the FTC's earlier loss on the Hershey merger—now on appeal to the Third Circuit—both cases reflect push-back by courts against what to this point have been highly successful FTC market definition and consumer harm arguments in hospital merger cases.

  1. Background

Defendants Advocate Health Care Network ("AHCN") and Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation ("AHHC," and together with AHCN "Advocate Health") together operate a non-profit health system and the largest hospital system in the Chicago metropolitan area, with twelve hospitals and over 250 health care practice sites generating $5.2 billion in revenue.3 NorthShore is a non-profit health system in the greater Chicago area, with four general acute-care ("GAC") hospitals generating $1.9 billion in revenue.4

In September 2014, Advocate Health and NorthShore entered an affiliation agreement combining the entities to become Advocate NorthShore Health Partners ("ANHP").5 The merger would yield a fifteen GAC hospital system in Illinois—the eleventh largest non-profit hospital system in the United States—generating around $7 billion in revenue.6

Advocate Health asserted the merger was to create a new low-cost, high performing network throughout the Chicago area, which required the combination with NorthShore.7 Similarly, NorthShore wanted to engage in large-scale, risk based contracting, but lacked the necessary geographic coverage and population health management tools available at Advocate Health. 8

In December 2015, the FTC filed an administrative complaint challenging the merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act.9 In parallel, the agency and the State of Illinois brought the district court action, discussed here, to enjoin the merger under Clayton Act Section 7.

  1. Market Definition and Competitive Effects

Courts evaluating hospital mergers focus heavily on assessing the right market definition, both in terms of the proper combination of competing products or services, and the geographic boundaries for that competition. The market definition is important because it can influence the court's decision about competitive effects and the presence of harm for consumers.

As with the case against Hershey, the Defendants and the FTC agreed on a commonly-used service market definition. They both viewed the market to be "GAC inpatient hospital services sold and provided to commercial payers and their insured members," which includes a broad cluster of medical and surgical treatment and diagnostic services often requiring a 24-hour stay in a hospital. The FTC also expressly excluded outpatient services, as well as other specialized care (e.g., tertiary and quaternary services) from the relevant markets.11

As was also the case with Hershey, and many other hospital merger challenges, the parties disagreed about the definition of the geographic market. The FTC contended the geographic markets should be the outer boundaries of the hospitals most in direct competition.12 Specifically, the FTC believed the market should be the "North Shore Area," including all of NorthShore's four hospitals and two of Advocate Health's. The FTC submitted the work of an economic expert, Dr. Steven Tenn of Charles River Associates, in support of its market definition. A few key points of his analysis discussed by the Court are worth highlighting:

  • Tenn included in the market only "local hospitals," and excluded "destination hospitals." The rationale was that relevant payers were concerned with plans that incorporated hospitals in the northern Chicago suburbs, which would by definition not include non-local destination hospitals, such as Northwestern Memorial Hospital.14
  • Tenn included only hospitals with at least 2% share in the area from which "relevant Advocate and NorthShore hospitals attract patients." The rationale was that hospitals with at least 2% market share would reflect the most competitive alternatives to relevant Advocate Health and NorthShore hospitals.15
  • Tenn only included hospitals that overlapped, i.e., drew patients from the same area, with hospitals from both Advocate Health and NorthShore. The rationale was that a significant fraction of patents view NorthShore and Advocate Health as primary and secondary alternatives, and thus it seemed reasonable to look in areas with only overlapping competition.16

Dr. Tenn—in testing his definition based on a hypothetical monopolist approach—found that 48% of the patients in the North Shore area would divert to one of the eleven hospitals captured within his market.17 Dr. Tenn believed such a high level of intra-market diversion validated the market definition.18

Consequently, the FTC alleged the merger was presumptively unlawful, reflected in the parties' combined market share of 55%, and the significant increase due to the merger in Herfindahl-Hirschman Index market concentration measurements.19 Furthermore, the FTC contended the loss of competition between Advocate Health and NorthShore would eliminate crucial price competition between the relevant hospitals on fee-for-service contracts.20 The FTC additionally claimed the merger would reduce incentives at NorthShore and Advocate Health to compete on quality and service.21

Defendants disagreed with the Plaintiffs' geographic market definition and arguments about competitive effects. They argued that excluding destination hospitals and other related entities made the market impermissibly narrow, which would if true artificially exacerbate the extent of foreclosure of competition within the market.22 For example, Dr. Tenn's diversion ratios demonstrated that the excluded Northwestern Memorial Hospital was actually the second or third alternative choice for patients using five of the six party hospitals in the Plaintiff's alleged market.23 Also, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs' market should but did not include hospitals that were outside the market but were fed GAC patients from affiliated outpatient and other clinics within the market.24

The Court—agreeing with the Defendants—found Dr. Tenn's methodology flawed and rejected the Plaintiffs' geographic market definition.25 The Court disagreed with Dr. Tenn's exclusion of destination hospitals, finding that Dr. Tenn: (a) provided no economic basis for the exclusion; (b) improperly assumed the answer to the question under investigation (i.e., what are the reasonable substitutes for the parties' hospitals); (c) improperly assumed, despite equivocal evidence, that patients prefer to receive GAC services near their homes; and (d) failed to consider commercial realities, including that payers contract for inpatient and outpatient services, outpatient service use is rising while inpatient utilization is falling, and outpatient services are a key driver for hospital admissions.26 The Court similarly disagreed with Dr. Tenn's third criterion—limiting the market to only hospitals that overlap with hospitals from both parties—contending that, instead of analyzing data to determine next best alternatives to the parties' hospitals, Dr. Tenn merely assumed the answer.27

  1. Summary and Concluding Observations

Both Hershey and Advocate Health are temporarily enjoined, pending emergency appeals by the FTC to the respective Courts of Appeal. It is possible that the appellate courts may overturn the lower court decisions. If so, this would arguably support the FTC's approach to defining hospital markets that was born in the mid-2000s, and turned a decade of FTC merger challenge failures into almost ten years of success. However, if sustained, the agency may be forced to again retool its analytical approach to defining hospital markets and analyzing the competitive effects of hospital mergers.

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


1 Federal Trade Commission v. Advocate Health Care et al., No. 2015-c-11473-JLA, Docket No. 472 (June 14, 2016 N.D.Ill.) ("Court Order").

2 Federal Trade Commission v. Advocate Health Care et al., No. 2015-c-11473-JLA, Docket No. 485, at 13 (June 20, 2016 N.D.Ill.) ("Court Opinion").

3 Federal Trade Commission v. Advocate Health Care et al., No. 2015-c-11473-JLA, Docket No. 14, 17-19 (Dec. 22, 2015 N.D.Ill.) ("Complaint"); Court Opinion at 1-2.

4 19; Court Opinion at 1-2.

5 Complaint 23; Court Opinion at 2.

6 Complaint 23; Court Opinion at 2.

7 See Court Opinion at 4.

8 See id.

9 In the Matter of Advocate Health Care Network et al., No. 9369, Federal Trade Commission, 12-13 (December 18, 2015) ("Admin Complaint").

10 Complaint 26; Court Opinion at 5-6.

11 Complaint 27-29.

12 Id. 30-34.

13 Id. 30-31; Court Opinion at 6-7.

14 Court Opinion at 6-7.

15 Id. at 7-8.

16 Id.

17 Id. at 8.

18 Id.

19 Complaint 36-37.

20 Id. 47-53.

21 Id. 54-57.

22 Court Opinion at 8-9.

23 Id. at 9.

24 Id.

25 Id.

26 Id. at 9-12.

27 Id. at 12-13.

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.

Events from this Firm
18 Sep 2018, Speaking Engagement, London, UK

Partner Christoph Brenner will attend as a panelist at the Annual Private Equity Europe Forum on the panel "Middle Market & Growth Investing" on Tuesday, September 18 at 3:45 p.m.

18 Sep 2018, Business Breakfast, London, UK

We are pleased to invite you to a breakfast briefing on the ground-breaking reforms of France’s bank monopoly laws.

20 Sep 2018, Seminar, Tokyo, Japan

Orrick's Total Access Japan Event Series provides entrepreneurs business, tactical, and legal education through complimentary panels and seminars and networking events. The next event will take place on Thursday, September 20 from 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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.


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.


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