By: Derek Hawkins//November 1, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Federal Trade Commission et al v. Advocate Health Care Network, et al
Case No.: 16-2492
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Preliminary Injunction – Clayton Act
Court erred in denying preliminary injunction preventing merger by failing to properly analyze the relevant geographic market.
“The hospitals correctly point out that, strictly speaking, that reasoning is not the same as the silent majority fallacy. The silent majority fallacy treats present travel as a proxy for post-merger travel, while diversion ratios predict likely postmerger travel more directly. But the district court’s reasoning and the silent majority fallacy share a critical flaw: they focus on the patients who leave a proposed market instead of on hospitals’ market power over the patients who remain, which means that the hospitals have market power over the insurers who need them to offer commercially viable products to customers who are reluctant to travel farther for general acute hospital care. That flaw runs through the district court’s decision. The court focused on identifying hospitals that compete with those in the Commission’s proposed market. But the relevant geographic market does not include every competitor. It is the “area of effective competition,” E. I. du Pont, 353 U.S. at 593 (emphasis added) (citation omitted), the place where the “effect of the merger on competition will be direct and immediate,” Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. at 357. It includes the competitors that discipline the merging hospitals’ prices. AD/SAT, 181 F.3d at 228; Rebel Oil, 51 F.3d at 1434. The geographic market question asks in essence, how many hospitals can insurers convince most customers to drive past to save a few percent on their health insurance premiums? We should not be surprised if that number is very small. Plaintiffs have made a strong case that it is. “
Reversed and Remanded