Great Seal of Virginia

by James C. Sherlock

Readers of this blog have indicated an unquenchable appetite for information about and discussion of Virginia’s Certificate of Public Need (COPN) law and its administration.

This essay informs on the negative impacts of the COPN law and the Virginia Antitrust Act (the Act) itself on the enforcement of antitrust laws against Virginia’s regional hospital monopolies.

First, know that the business activities that some of Virginia’s hospital monopolies exhibit can already be deemed illegal under both federal and state antitrust laws. But the Act gives them a special dispensation, complicates both state and federal antitrust enforcement and results directly in the in-your-face anticompetitive activities we see every day.

The federal government (and once even Bob McDonnell as Virginia Attorney General) occasionally have intervened to block interstate mergers or in-state acquisitions before they occur, but always within the federal administrative and court systems, and they have never challenged COPN decisions.

But no government agency has ever sued over the business activities of Virginia’s COPN-constructed monopolies.

The COPN decisions are state actions. That answers the obvious question about suing over COPN decisions. Federalism. Virginia and Tennessee even coordinated parallel laws to protect the merger that created Ballad Health by saying they would provide joint state oversight. Federalism again shields the merger from federal oversight.

But it is very useful to view the legal impediments Virginia has put in place to prevent antitrust suits against business activities of its hospital monopolies and the effects of those impediments on both state and federal enforcement of antitrust laws.

The story is a scandal. But if you are into cost-benefit analyses, it shows the measurable value and efficiency of buying influence in the Virginia government when it can provide protection against federal law as well. Cheap at twice the price.

Virginia

The Virginia Antitrust Act (the Act), passed the year after COPN became law, includes a get-out-of-jail-free provision for COPN-constructed monopolies:

Nothing contained in this chapter shall make unlawful conduct that is authorized, regulated or approved (i) by a statute of the Commonwealth or (ii) by an administrative or constitutionally established agency of the Commonwealth or of the United States having jurisdiction of the subject matter and having authority to consider the anticompetitive effect, if any, of such conduct.

No one can think it was an accident that the Virginia Antitrust Act of 1974 contains a provision that protects the conduct of monopolies assembled by decisions made under the COPN law of 1973.  Nor do I think anyone not in the employ of the hospitals will argue that the provision above is somehow in the public interest, but we’ll see.

It represents successful rent-seeking stuck as an intercellular parasite into a public law that consumes it, rendering it un-actionable. There was no public purpose to write state antitrust legislation and exempt the activities of those by far most likely to violate it.

The language of the Act purposely made it virtually impossible for plaintiffs to win a suit under that act if the defendant is a hospital system. All of them are regulated “by an administrative or constitutionally established agency of the Commonwealth,” the COPN system.

I am not a legal historian, but the Virginia Antitrust Act appears to have lain unused for 47 years, since Virginia’s only prominent monopolies are by that same statute beyond its reach. I have been unable to find any case law in the history of that Act. Perhaps a reader knows better.

So, the refuge for Virginians from conduct of otherwise illegal activities by its regional monopoly hospital systems (or any other monopoly) realistically lies in federal law and federal courts.

The best thing to do with the worse-than-useless Virginia Antitrust Act is to repeal it.

The Federal Government

The federal Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission share responsibility for enforcement of federal antitrust laws. Those laws are broader and less compromised than the Act. State Attorneys General, Commonwealth Attorneys and private citizens can sue in federal court.

Those federal agencies would love to stop antitrust violations that they see more clearly than any of us, but face their own significant obstacles. I refer readers to the 2015

Joint Statement of the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice to the Virginia Certificate of Public Need Work Group.

Please see that statement here.

The letter came from the Obama administration, but the position the letter asserts has been bipartisan. Similar letters were sent earlier from the same organizations under President Bush.

The statement explains the issues with COPN and its outcomes from a federal perspective better than I ever could. I will tease its contents by offering the second paragraph of the statement.

CON laws, when enacted, had the laudable goals of reducing health care costs and improving access to care. However, it is now apparent that CON laws can prevent the efficient functioning of health care markets in several ways that may undermine those goals.

First, CON laws create barriers to entry and expansion, limit consumer choice, and stifle innovation.

Second, incumbent firms seeking to thwart or delay entry by new competitors may use CON laws to achieve that end.

Third, as illustrated by the FTC’s recent experience in the Phoebe Putney case, CON laws can deny consumers the benefit of an effective remedy following the consummation of an anticompetitive merger.

Finally, the evidence to date does not suggest that CON laws have generally succeeded in controlling costs or improving quality.

For these reasons, explained more fully below, the Agencies historically have suggested that states consider repeal or retrenchment of their CON laws and, in this case, respectfully suggest that the Work Group and the General Assembly consider whether repeal or retrenchment of Virginia’s COPN laws would best serve its citizens.

So perhaps reading the statement will help satisfy the great appetite shown on this blog for information on the consequences of CON laws in general and COPN in particular.

I offer it for your consideration. I have offered here as well as another example of the legendary corruption of Virginia’s government.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

12 responses to “Virginia’s Legendary Corruption Blocks Antitrust Enforcement”

  1. djrippert Avatar

    Interesting that the Obama Administration saw the issue so clearly but the progressives running our General Assembly stare blindly into the pockets of BigMed donors.

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This is much ado about nothing.

    I don’t know the motivation behind the enactment of the Virginia antitrust laws, but, as the author point out, they have never been used. The state has not brought antitrust charges against any business. Therefore, it won’t do to characterize the hospital industry as benefiting from favoritism.

    Linking the passage of the antitrust laws to COPN, due to the one-year lag in their enactment dates is a stretch. I can certainly believe that it was a coincidence. COPN was in its infancy. The major hospital conglomerates (branches in several localities in a region, affiliated clinics, affiliated medical practices, their own health insurance plans, etc.) did not exist in the early 1970s. I doubt if anyone foresaw the utility that COPN would have in developing these hospital oligopolies.

    Finally, it would not make sense for a law to make illegal those activities which the government had approved under another set of laws. Even without that provision in the antitrust law, a hospital could say in its defense, that its actions were approved by government.

    If one leaves the COPN issue aside, I think it would still be possible to make an antitrust case against Sentara in Hampton Roads and, potentially, hospital behemoths in other areas (INOVA, Carillion, perhaps). Those hospital companies have created vertical monopolies that make it hard for others to compete. However, because the state antitrust laws have not been utilized, I doubt if the Attorney General’s office has the expertise to institute such a case, even if it had the political will. Antitrust is a complex area requiring special knowledge and it takes years to develop a case.

    1. sherlockj Avatar

      There were a series of these statements under both the Bush and Obama administrations over a period of more than a decade sent to State legislatures that requested federal input.

  3. djrippert Avatar

    Interesting that the Obama Administration saw the issue so clearly but the progressives running our General Assembly stare blindly into the pockets of BigMed donors.

  4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This is much ado about nothing.

    I don’t know the motivation behind the enactment of the Virginia antitrust laws, but, as the author point out, they have never been used. The state has not brought antitrust charges against any business. Therefore, it won’t do to characterize the hospital industry as benefiting from favoritism.

    Linking the passage of the antitrust laws to COPN, due to the one-year lag in their enactment dates is a stretch. I can certainly believe that it was a coincidence. COPN was in its infancy. The major hospital conglomerates (branches in several localities in a region, affiliated clinics, affiliated medical practices, their own health insurance plans, etc.) did not exist in the early 1970s. I doubt if anyone foresaw the utility that COPN would have in developing these hospital oligopolies.

    Finally, it would not make sense for a law to make illegal those activities which the government had approved under another set of laws. Even without that provision in the antitrust law, a hospital could say in its defense, that its actions were approved by government.

    If one leaves the COPN issue aside, I think it would still be possible to make an antitrust case against Sentara in Hampton Roads and, potentially, hospital behemoths in other areas (INOVA, Carillion, perhaps). Those hospital companies have created vertical monopolies that make it hard for others to compete. However, because the state antitrust laws have not been utilized, I doubt if the Attorney General’s office has the expertise to institute such a case, even if it had the political will. Antitrust is a complex area requiring special knowledge and it takes years to develop a case.

    1. sherlockj Avatar

      Did you read the federal government statement?

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Yes. It recommends repeal or “retrenchment” of the COPN law. The only part that I saw that discussed antitrust litigation involved a case in Georgia.

        I am not arguing that the COPN provisions have not been abused to create more market power for Sentara and other hospital systems. I am pointing out that it would be illogical and, probably legally futile, to bring antitrust litigation based on COPN actions because the government has approved those actions, however unwise that approval was. Theoretically, the AG could institute antitrust actions, based on other factors, but that route is probably not practical.

        1. sherlockj Avatar

          As you can glean from what I wrote, antitrust actions based on the results of COPN decisions in either state or federal court are futile. One also cannot sue because of the existence of a monopoly. It is the anticompetitive activities of a monopoly that are actionable, but not against a hospital under the Virginia Antitrust Act because of its language.

          But both federal actions and private actions in federal court against such anticompetitive activities are appropriate. The feds avoided them for a period because they lost a series of hospital cases in the 80’s when courts ruled that state action doctrine applied even in the case of otherwise illegal activities. More recently, including a DOJ victory in federal court against a hospital system in North Carolina, the results have been promising. As a result, I believe we may see similar federal or private suits in Virginia before long. We’ll see.

    2. sherlockj Avatar

      I’m afraid you give the hospitals far too little credit, Dick.

      Your statement

      “I don’t know the motivation behind the enactment of the Virginia antitrust laws, but, as the author point out, they have never been used. The state has not brought antitrust charges against any business. Therefore, it won’t do to characterize the hospital industry as benefiting from favoritism.”

      The state antitrust law exempted from its inception the only organizations of a regional scale big enough to trigger it, and your assessment is that “it won’t do” to characterize the hospital industry of benefiting from favoritism.

      It will do.

    1. sherlockj Avatar

      There were a series of these statements under both the Bush and Obama administrations over a period of more than a decade sent to State legislatures that requested federal input.

Leave a Reply