IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v14y2018i3p433-466..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hospital Mergers And Antitrust Immunity: The Acquisition Of Palmyra Medical Center By Phoebe Putney Health

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Garmon
  • Laura Kmitch

Abstract

On December 15, 2011, Phoebe Putney Health acquired the only other hospital in Albany, Georgia—Palmyra Medical Center—despite the Federal Trade Commission’s challenge of the merger as anticompetitive. The acquisition was consummated after the district and appellate courts ruled that Phoebe Putney had antitrust immunity due to its regulation by the local Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County. In February 2013, the Supreme Court reversed these rulings and remanded the case back to the lower courts, after Palmyra Medical Center had become part of Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, making a divestiture infeasible. The acquisition of Palmyra Medical Center by Phoebe Putney provides an opportunity to study the effects of an otherwise anticompetitive hospital merger subject to local regulation. We found that, after a large price spike in the first post-merger year, the commercial price of inpatient hospital services in Albany, Georgia, moderated toward the control group price in subsequent post-merger years. Regarding quality, we found a significant post-merger reduction in inpatient hospital quality relative to controls across many quality metrics. We discuss the implications of these findings for recent initiatives that grant hospitals antitrust immunity in exchange for local regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Garmon & Laura Kmitch, 2018. "Hospital Mergers And Antitrust Immunity: The Acquisition Of Palmyra Medical Center By Phoebe Putney Health," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 433-466.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:14:y:2018:i:3:p:433-466.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhy015
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:14:y:2018:i:3:p:433-466.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.