Mores seriously, this article explains why Partners needed the buy-in from the Massachusetts Attorney General in the recently filed settlement of its anti-trust case: "State action" precludes a more thorough federal involvement. But the real question is why the federal government agreed to defer to the state in the first place, as opposed to pursing an FTC and/or DOJ case: Was this a favor from the Obama administration to their preferred Democratic candidate?
2 comments:
Irrespective of why the feds took this (in)action, it is clear that the so-called buy-in, otherwise known as sell-out, of AG Coakley was the most critical piece to Partners, because it got the feds off of their backs - the only entity which could cause very serious trouble for Partners' hegemony plans and even potentially lead to their breakup.
So the people of your state were let down by both their federal and state governments. Your tax dollars, and health insurance premiums, at work.
Paul - Assuming the Partners deal is approved what do you see as the market reaction? Do BIDMC and Lahey try to recreate Care Group and what in the world does a hospital like NEMC or a network like Steward do? Partners will be like a black hole in terms of getting more and more of the healthcare spend and volume in the areas they serve. These groups will not make it or will be much smaller than they currently are. Any thoughts on what happens with the other "players" in terms of them getting bigger to try and challenge Partners or downsizing to try and protect their little piece of their market? I can't help but think there is going to be a huge shake out in this marketplace, especially if this Partners deal gets final approval.
Post a Comment