Collusion among Helath Insures in Chile: Good, Bad and Ugly Reasons in a Split Decision
AbstractWe analyze in this paper the TDLC’s ruling in an antitrust case against five health insurance providers (“Isapres”) in Chile, accused of colluding to reduce the coverage on the health insurance plans they offer. The TDLC is a court of appeals specialized in free competition and composed of a combination of economists and lawyers. We considers the fact that the system to be followed by the TDLC to assess the proof is the rule of reason, which requires the judges to assess the evidence based on their experience, formal rules of logic, and economic theory. Likewise, TDLC judges are obliged to explain and justify their judgments with not only their appreciation of the proof, but also an account of all the evidence submitted. We hold that the TDLC judgment is precise and correct in some disputed points, but the majority decision has essential errors that ultimately led to the acquittal of the accused Isapres. Regarding the final Supreme Court verdict, most of the judges based their decision on the lack of explicit collusion evidence, dismissing the use of indirect collusion evidence. The minority judges, however, stated that the evidence of implicit collusion was sufficient to condemn the Isapres.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Ilades-Georgetown University, Universidad Alberto Hurtado/School of Economics and Bussines in its series ILADES-Georgetown University Working Papers with number inv256.
Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: Jun 2010
Date of revision:
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
- K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process
- L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016919, December.
- Claudio Agostini & Eduardo Saavedra & Manuel Willington, 2008. "Collusion in the Private Health Insurance Market: Empirical Evidence for Chile," ILADES-Georgetown University Working Papers inv206, Ilades-Georgetown University, Universidad Alberto Hurtado/School of Economics and Bussines.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marcela Perticara).
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.