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.
3. Peer review of fees by physician groups: antitrust issues. Scott M Health Law Vigil; 1986 Jul; 9(14):5-8. PubMed ID: 10277308 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Procompetitive standards OK, lawyer assures PPRC. Pollner F Med World News; 1989 Feb; 30(3):55. PubMed ID: 10294486 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Maricopa aftermath: what is required for a physician group to achieve integration? Stromberg RE; Goldman JS Health Law Vigil; 1985 Jan; 8(1):17-20. PubMed ID: 10269416 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Public service and ethical norms: the courts are speaking; is the medical profession listening? Trombetta WL Conn Med; 1986 Mar; 50(3):185-9. PubMed ID: 3698590 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Anti-trust implications of independent practice or associations. McIntire TJ Tenn Med; 2006 Jun; 99(6):31-3. PubMed ID: 16802660 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Arizona v. Maricopa County: a stern antitrust warning to healthcare providers. Halper HR Healthc Financ Manage; 1982 Oct; 36(10):38-42. PubMed ID: 10315212 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Anticompetitive conduct and the medical profession. Ahdar RJ N Z Med J; 1987 Apr; 100(822):248-50. PubMed ID: 3454894 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Collective negotiation and antitrust: Part 3. Antitrust laws and your practice. J Miss State Med Assoc; 1990 Feb; 31(2):47-50. PubMed ID: 2313689 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. U.S. Supreme Court rejects case-by-case antitrust analysis in Maricopa. McCann RW Health Law Vigil; 1982 Jun; 5(13):1-4. PubMed ID: 10256005 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. High Court debate: does healthcare deserve special antitrust review? Proger PA Mod Healthc; 1981 Nov; 11(11):120, 122. PubMed ID: 10253232 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Justice Dept. levels criminal antitrust charges. Burda D Mod Healthc; 1990 Feb; 20(6):4. PubMed ID: 10103597 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Provider-sponsored ADSs: reducing antitrust liability after Maricopa. Walsh JH; Feller H Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon); 1985 Apr; 7(2):5-25. PubMed ID: 10270877 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Blue Shield's ban on balance billing found an "unreasonable restraint on competition". Employee Benefit Plan Rev; 1984 Aug; 39(2):97-8. PubMed ID: 10278262 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. A tale of four cases: Patrick, Bolt, Mitchell, and Oltz. Chenen AR Med Staff Couns; 1989; 3(2):51-4. PubMed ID: 10292421 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Anti-trust law and exclusive services contracts. Davis CD Tex Hosp; 1984 Jun; 40(1):47-8. PubMed ID: 10278254 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Health planning subject to careful anti-trust scrutiny. Davis CD Tex Hosp; 1983 Jun; 39(1):44-5. PubMed ID: 10261360 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Cost containment in the health care field and the antitrust laws. Shapiro DI Am J Law Med; 1982; 7(4):425-35. PubMed ID: 7102679 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]