These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10120611)
1. Ore. hospital appeals dismissal of lawsuit. Burda D Mod Healthc; 1992 Sep; 22(39):63. PubMed ID: 10120611 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Ore. upstart takes on rival. Taylor M Mod Healthc; 2002 Feb; 32(6):18-9, 21. PubMed ID: 11892528 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Examining exclusionary conduct of HMOs and PPOs: a case comment on Northwest Medical Laboratories v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oregon. Levitt DM Am J Law Med; 1991; 17(3):271-88. PubMed ID: 1785621 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Judge Posner's RFP: antitrust law and managed care. Sage WM Health Aff (Millwood); 1997; 16(6):44-61. PubMed ID: 9444808 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Antitrust assault on hospital-Blue Cross relations. Davis CD Tex Hosp; 1984 Feb; 39(9):46-7. PubMed ID: 10278223 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Is this group an illegal doctor monopoly? Slomski AJ Med Econ; 1994 Sep; 71(18):64-6, 69-70, 72 passim. PubMed ID: 10136387 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Legal. Experts debate the impact of antitrust suit against Michigan Blues. Taylor M Hosp Health Netw; 2010 Dec; 84(12):12, 14. PubMed ID: 21268792 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Law-medicine notes: Health planning, Blue Cross, and the federal antitrust laws. Curran WJ N Engl J Med; 1981 Nov; 305(20):1194-5. PubMed ID: 6169992 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Nine New Jersey hospitals charge Blue Cross with antitrust. Beth Israel Hospital et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. Hudson T Hosp Health Netw; 1993 Sep; 67(18):62. PubMed ID: 8369840 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Managed competition, integrated delivery systems and antitrust. Greaney TL Cornell Law Rev; 1994 Sep; 79(6):1507-45. PubMed ID: 10141442 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Comment on Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.: an antitrust analysis of Blue Shield's reimbursement schemes. Wayne AB Am J Law Med; 1986; 11(4):465-500. PubMed ID: 3591810 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The sleeping giant awakens: the physician and the antitrust laws. Hirsh HL Leg Med; 1985; ():334-56. PubMed ID: 3835424 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Minimizing antitrust risks of Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. Steele CJ J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1988; 4():227-72. PubMed ID: 10288422 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Antitrust implications of health planning: National Gerimedical Hospital and Gerontology Center v. Blue Cross of Kansas City. Chase JB Am J Law Med; 1982; 8(3):321-48. PubMed ID: 7168454 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Wis. insurer suing physicians in reversal of typical roles. Burda D Mod Healthc; 1994 Mar; 24(13):33. PubMed ID: 10132355 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Court overturns jury's verdict on Blue Cross antitrust violation claim. Kazon PM Bus Health; 1988 Nov; 6(1):44-5. PubMed ID: 10290529 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Changing antitrust prospects for hospital mergers. O'Malley S Health Syst Lead; 1997 Jan; 4(1):4-12. PubMed ID: 10164539 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. States may become battleground in push for collective bargaining. Carroll J Manag Care; 2002 Jun; 11(6):10-2. PubMed ID: 12098869 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Most Favored Nation clauses require close scrutiny. Roeder KH Ga Hosp Today; 1995 Nov; 39(11):3. PubMed ID: 10152770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Court decisions give Blues plans one win, one loss in separate antitrust cases. Halper HR; Kazon PM Bus Health; 1987 Mar; 4(5):51-2. PubMed ID: 10280673 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]