Antitrust and monopolization

Overview

Pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical device manufacturers, providers, and payors are routinely subject to allegations of anticompetitive conduct. Many common practices in the healthcare industry, such as exclusive contracts, bundled pricing, vertical restraints, and tiered discounts can have competitive effects that come under antitrust scrutiny. The particularly complex competitive interaction between brand and generic manufacturers in the pharmaceutical industry give rise to a unique range of antitrust issues involving allegations of market division, exceeding patent rights, and market foreclosure. Many healthcare-related industries are innovation-based and require careful attention to both the long- and short-run effects of alleged behavior or proposed remedies. Our clients count on us for analysis and testimony that assesses competitive impact and evaluates allegations in a clear and balanced manner.

  • In United States and State of Texas v. United Regional Health Care System, retained as testifying expert on behalf of Department of Justice to analyze the competitive effects of United Regional’s exclusionary contracts with health insurers. DOJ reached a settlement with United Regional that prohibits the hospital from entering into contracts that improperly inhibit commercial health insurers from contracting with United Regional’s competitors.
  • In the matter Sheridan Healthcorp v. AvMed, provided economic analysis and testimony on alleged monopolization of the market for certain physician services following a series of mergers, affiliations, and exclusive arrangements. Provided analyses of relevant antitrust markets and assessed market power and effects on competition.
  • In Augustine Medical Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Medical, provided written and deposition testimony on market definition, market power, competitive impact, and damages in a monopolization matter on behalf of counterclaim defendant Augustine, a medical device manufacturer. The opposing expert was precluded from testifying under Daubert, and the matter was dismissed by summary judgment.
  • Calculated the expected impact of certain life-cycle management strategies on the value and timing of generic competitive entry decisions on behalf of a pharmaceutical manufacturer. Evaluated likely competitive effects of these strategies.
  • In Peoria Day Surgery Center v. OSF Healthcare System, worked with Academic Affiliate David Dranove to provide written and deposition expert testimony on behalf of Peoria Day Surgery Center. Analyzed the impact of exclusive contracting practices to establish the existence of market power and anticompetitive tying and bundling by the defendant hospital. The case settled after Peoria Day’s antitrust claims survived OSF’s motion for summary judgment.
  • Supported liability and damages experts in multiple lawsuits to analyze the competitive effects of loyalty rebates and bundled discounts associated with the sale of medical devices to hospitals through GPOs. Assessed whether particular business practices resulted in higher prices to customers and whether manufacturers had market power in the context of the alleged monopolization claims.