The Company Of Free Enterprise And Market Competition

The United States is known for having a free-enterprise economy where a business can be conducted freely without government involved. In free-enterprise economies, goods and services are traded openly and are produced depending on the demand. People who support this type of economy believe it motivates businesses to make money and welcome new ideas. An important part of the economy is to have full employment and low inflation.

Is the US Healthcare system truly reflective of a free market economy driven by supply and demand? Initially, one would be inclined to think yes. In an ideal world, a free market is one which is driven by individual innovation and the concept that hard-work and ingenuity will be bestowed with success. Indeed, the biggest advantage of a free market is that it places the power of choice into the hands of the people. There is freedom to choose how you want to spend your money, what you want to spend it on, and whom you want to spend it on. Do you want to see a physician regarding a yearly physical? Open the yellow pages. You will more than likely find over 100 general practitioners in your immediate area to choose from. Do you want to spend your money on preventative care, early screenings, vaccinations, etc? Or do you want to spend your money on medications after you are diagnosed with an ailment? The main idea behind a free market is that prices will regulate themselves. In regards to the US Healthcare system, it is questions like

In Regents of the University of Michigan the Plaintiff respondent Scott Ewing was dismissed from the University of Michigan after failing an examination. Ewing was a student in a six-year program wherein a student could after successful completion obtain both their undergraduate and graduate medical program. Successful completion required a student to pass the NBME Part 1 exam which I am a 2-day written exam.

The historical context of the Sherman Act lies in the corporate climate of the United States during the time period preceding the creation of these antitrust laws. At that time the market was dominated by several monopolies in industries such as railroads, tobacco production, meatpacking and coal mining. The US Government determined the monopolies did not provide enough fair competition in those industries to provide protection of consumers.

Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits the efforts of multiple firms to restrain trade by controlling prices and supply in a market (46 Case W. Res. 1033). In terms of a professional sports league, a

In the issue of Cal Hockley’s steel mills, it is clear that the courts would find Cal Hockley in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, even though the conduct

On the local level, in Illinois, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against a merger between Rockford Health System and Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis (OSF) Healthcare System. The FTC argued that the merger “would lead to significantly higher costs that would be passed on to employers and to health care consumers in Rockford” and would harm local employers and patients (FTC.gov, 2011). The FTC further alleges that competition would be reduced and local business would be impacted by higher insurance rates and patients would see hikes in co-pays, insurance premiums and “other out of pocket expenses” (FTC.gov, 2011). Moreover, in violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act, the merger would have reduced acute-care inpatient services, and primary care physician services from three provider systems to two creating a monopoly and

The respondents, NFL, moved for a motion of summary judgment on the Section 1 claim, arguing it was immune from antitrust liability as a single entity. In response, American Needle sought a continuance and asked the U.S. District Court to allow discovery, a motion opposed by the

The balance between providing high-quality medical care and running a profitable business is a constant battle in the medical community. Thirty years ago, less than two percent of physicians changed jobs during their career. Today, approximately ten percent of physicians change jobs on an annual basis. As physician mobility begins to rise, the medical community’s need to protect its business interest become increasingly necessary. Physician restrictive covenants, or covenant not to compete provisions, have gradually become the prominent tool in order to facilitate that protection. As such, it is important to note and analyze the significant impact that enforcement of these restrictive covenants has not only on the business and the physician individually, but on third parties such as the community and the public at large. This paper will provide a brief outline the history of restrictive covenants, detail the application of those restrictive covenants in the healthcare context, and finally analyze the effects that judicial enforcement of those restrictive covenants has on the physician-patient relationship, the patient’s right to choose, and medically underserved areas.

However, Dr. Stout had a “non-compete agreement with [the prior medical practice]” which limited his ability to work in the local area.

The Sherman Act was passed in 1890, which aimed at preserving competition as the rule of trade. In 1914, congressed passed the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act. Some revisions have been added to the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act of 1890, the three acts are still at the core of federal antitrust laws in present time. Antitrust laws protect the process of competition for the benefit of customers, making sure that there are strong incentives for businesses to operate effectively, keep prices down, and keep quality up (“The Antitrust Laws,” ftc.gov, February 11, 2016). Healthcare practices that cause inefficiencies in quality of care that result in higher prices are a violation of the Sherman

Unfortunately, the current imperfect market produce higher healthcare cost because competition is not driving prices. U.S. healthcare costs are much higher than the actual cost of producing the services. Due to the third-party payment system we call insurance, few patients actually are responsible for the entire cost of services. This oversight makes many patients somewhat oblivious to cost containment, producing a large quantity of consumption. The system is determined by need or want rather than supply and demand. In addition, the U.S. healthcare market is not regulated as it would be with a single payer system, which makes it difficult to control prices.

I think you explain the concept in a clear manner. I just want to add about the how antitrust laws prevent industries from becoming monopolies, Antitrust principles promote competition and rivalry among providers of a service or good. Hopefully increasing the supply will lead to the best allocation of resources, and lower prices, in contrast with anti-competitive industries that would force the consumers to deal with the lack of choices and may raise prices too. Some might say that the Affordable Care Act could resemble a monopoly due to the fact that it enourages healthcare coordination and integration, but I think that since the system currently shows a high level of dissagregation that needs to be corrected in order to optimize the services

I enjoyed reading your post and although I chose the free market as being ideal, the reality is that oligopolies are more realistic and fair. I have worked in the healthcare field for the past 22 years and over the years I have seen a multitude of changes take place. In 1998, I worked as a referral coordinator. At the time HMO policies were the least expensive plans, however most of them were part of an Independent Physicians Association (IPA). The IPA was essentially a group of physicians that would see their own patients and be given a fixed payment per patient from the insurance company. Unfortunately you would usually wound up jumping through hoops to get an authorization for a patient approved. Like the old IPAs, affordable policies

A competitive market is one that allows easy entry and exit: a market in which companies are generally free to enter or to leave at will. This does not describe the health care market in the US. There are certain assumptions that the competitive market model operates under some assumptions, first is the consumer/patient has full information about the nature of the services required, the anticipated results of their decision and the benefits obtain from the service. This is not true in health care often time the patient is operating at a distinct information disadvantage when they require health care services such as insurance. If a patient purchases health insurance often they don’t know enough information to ascertain if they have