|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
Recent cases such as National Gerimedical Hospital and Gerontology Center v. Blue Cross of Kansas City have found that certificate-of-need (CON) legislation did not intend to remove antitrust considerations. This note discusses the exemptions from antitrust provided by the state action doctrine of Parker v. Brown as well as the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, both of which appear to protect provider input into the CON process. Providing information that assists decision-making must be carefully distinguished from providing data that serve the interests of physicians and hospitals.
|
|
