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.
141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6897759)
1. Antitrust and health care: provider controlled health plans and the Maricopa decision. Weller CD Am J Law Med; 1982; 8(3):223-49. PubMed ID: 6897759 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. An economic analysis of the Maricopa decision. Goldberg LG; Greenberg W Health Matrix; 1987; 5(2):26-30. PubMed ID: 10283416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Recent supreme court antitrust rulings in health care. Podell LB Am J Hosp Pharm; 1983 Apr; 40(4):639-41. PubMed ID: 6846375 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Antitrust and third party insurers. Heitler G Am J Law Med; 1982; 8(3):251-70. PubMed ID: 7168451 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. How can PPOs control prices without violating antitrust laws? Fried JM Hosp Prog; 1984 Mar; 65(3):34-7. PubMed ID: 10265221 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The development of preferred provider organizations and its antitrust implications. Maram BS J Med Pract Manage; 1985 Oct; 1(2):130-5. PubMed ID: 10281825 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The legal framework for effective competition. Berenson RA; Hastings DA; Kopit WG Baxter Health Policy Rev; 1996; 2():235-65. PubMed ID: 11066262 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Preferred provider organizations, price-fixing and Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Bluhm RJ Health Matrix; 1987; 5(3):9-16. PubMed ID: 10285386 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Ball Memorial Hospital: Section 2 Sherman Act analysis in the alternative health care delivery market. Kirsch T Am J Law Med; 1988; 14(2-3):249-79. PubMed ID: 3072878 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A competitive analysis of most favored nations clauses in contracts between health care providers and insurers. Celnicker A Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon); 1991 Dec; (154):7-36. PubMed ID: 10115476 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
18. 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]
19. Antitrust implications of chiropractic Peer Review Committees. Volper V Am J Law Med; 1982; 8(1):45-68. PubMed ID: 7124747 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Monopolies, Maricopa, and marketing: a case study. Perkins J; Mercer A; McClary C Hosp Health Serv Adm; 1986; 31(4):34-44. PubMed ID: 10277339 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]