Brief Fact Summary. Arizona (Plaintiff) challenged the schedule of fees of two doctor groups.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An agreement on maximum fees for specific medical services constitutes a per se antitrust violation.
Issue. Does an agreement on maximum fees for specific medical services constitute a per se antitrust violation?
Held. (Stevens, J.)Â Yes.Â An agreement on maximum fees for specific medical services constitutes a per se antitrust violation.Â Most actions in restraint of trade are subject to a “rule of reason” requiring extensive inquiry into their purposes and effects.Â However, some categories of restraint have been deemed so inherently anticompetitive that a per se rule of illegality applies.Â One such category is horizontal price-fixing.Â In this case, horizontal price-fixing is what is being affected, so the per se rule would appear applicable at first glance.Â However, Maricopa (Defendant) and Pima (Defendant) argued that an agreement to fix maximum rather than minimum prices is not anticompetitive.Â This is not true.Â Price floors and price ceilings may have different consequences economically, but price ceilings still have anticompetitive effects, as they may severely intrude upon the ability of competitors to service in the market.Â Both Defendants also argued that the health care field should not be included in the per se rule.Â This Court is not convinced.Â The economic analysis for the medical profession is basically the same as for business in general.Â For these reasons, the courts below were incorrect in failing to apply the per se rule.Â Reversed.
Horizontal agreements to fix maximum prices are on the same legal--even if not economic--footing as agreements to fix minimum or uniform prices.View Full Point of Law
Discussion. At first glance, price ceilings do not have the sinister, conspiratorial air that price floors do.Â However, price ceilings can have anticompetitive effects, which will harm consumers in the long run.