Marion Healthcare LLC v. Southern Illinois Healthcare
In this case, the Department of Justice submitted a Statement of Interest related to a civil action in a case between Marion Health Care LLC and Southern Illinois Healthcare. The complainant, Marion LLC, is an ambulatory surgery center, which offers surgical services for patients presenting in its outpatient care unit in Southern Illinois. The defendant offers both inpatient and outpatient ambulatory services in the same region as Marion LLC. The facts of the case indicate that Southern Illinois had signed an exclusive agreement that barred its partnering health care providers from contracting with competing health care providers, such as Marion LLC (Department of Justice, 2018).
The case affects lawmakers in the sense that it informs reviews of healthcare insurance. Practically, the case highlights issues revolving around private insurance policies. One finds that unhealthy competition in the modes of health care insurance hinders some patients from accessing health care services. The case also raises concerning the role of health care leaders in promoting access to health care by patients. Precisely, the facts of the case pinpoint the need for health care leaders to deal with potential barriers to accessing health care in the country.
U.S. v. Jeffrey A. Glazer and U.S. v. Jason T. Malek
The Sherman Act was the center of litigation in the case. The court proceedings indicated that Jeffrey Glazer and Jason Malek, who worked for the same pharmaceutical company, conspired to fix prices for prescription antibiotics and diabetes drugs. Furthermore, facts about the case indicate that two defendants carried on their illegal practice for two years, between 2013 and 2015, which could have affected the ease of access to the important drugs by patients (Department of Justice, 2016b).
The case affects lawmakers in the sense that it suggests the need to have concrete legislative policies that address unethical practices in health care, especially by caregivers. The conclusion draws from the realization that it is unethical to conspire to hike prices for important prescription drugs because it denies affected patients the opportunity of experiencing positive health outcomes because of their inability to buy medicines. Health care leaders are also implicated in the sense that they play a significant role in promoting positive health outcomes, especially because they prescribe and enhance access to effective drugs and medical procedures.
U.S. et al. v. Anthem, Inc. & Cigna Corp.
In this case, the court was required to determine if the defendants violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act when they merged intending to promote their competitive advantage in the health insurance sector. More facts about the case reveal that the defendants are among five of the largest health insurers, which means that a merger would reduce the levels of competition in the industry (Department of Justice, 2016a).
Lawmakers in the US are concerned with regulating competition in the health sector, especially through dealing with any practices that create monopolies in health caregiving. An unregulated private health insurance system is likely to exploit the population because of price manipulations, which would minimize the ease of access to health care. The issue also concerns health care leaders, who are equally tasked with reducing the barriers to accessing health care in the country. Health care leaders may partner with relevant agencies in formulating policies that reduce restrictive practices in health care.
References
- Department of Justice. (2016a). U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Anthem, Inc. and Cigna Corp. (2016). Justice.gov. Web.
- Department of Justice. (2016b). U.S. v. Jeffrey A. Glazer and U.S. v. Jason T. Malek. Justice.gov. Web.
- Department of Justice. (2018). Marion Healthcare LLC v. Southern Illinois Healthcare. Justice.gov. Web.