Skip to main content

Displaying 901 - 920 of 1530

Roaring Fork Valley Physicians I.P.A., Inc.

Roaring Fork Valley Physicians, IPA, Inc., a Colorado physicians’ group, settled Commission charges of price-fixing by agreeing to halt its use of allegedly anticompetitive negotiating tactics against health insurers. The Commission charged Roaring Fork Valley Physicians I.P.A., Inc., which represents about 80 percent of the doctors in Garfield County, Colorado, with violating the FTC Act by orchestrating agreements among its members to set higher prices for medical services and to refuse to deal with insurers that did not meet its demands for higher rates.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
061 0172

Higgins, M. Catherine, In the Matter of

The Commission settled charges that the executive director of a Colorado physicians’ association actively tried to evade the terms of a 2008 FTC order by telling insurers that because she was not named individually in the order, she could simply negotiate on behalf of competing physicians on the “outside” and “not with my [association] hat, but as an individual.” The Commission complaint and consent order settling the FTC’s charges name the executive director individually, and will prevent her from orchestrating or implementing price-fixing agreements among the group’s competing physicians.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
051 0252
0510252b

Boulder Valley Individual Practice Association

The Commission challenged the conduct of Boulder Valley Individual Practice Association for refusing to deal, or threatening to refuse to deal with insurance providers that failed to increase fees paid to group doctors, and also prevented members from contracting with payers, except through Boulder Valley. During the period between 2001 and 2006 Boulder Valley IPA threatened to terminate contracts with payers unless the payers agreed to pay increased fees-for-service set by Boulder Valley, effectively engaging in illegal price fixing, and harming Boulder country area consumers by charging higher prices for the various physician’s services offered. The settlement prohibits Boulder Valley from entering into agreements between or among physicians: 1) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payer; 2) to refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal, with any payer; 3) to designate the terms, conditions, or requirements upon which any physician deals, or is willing to deal, with any payer, including, but not limited to price terms; 4) not to deal individually with any payer, or not to deal with any payer through any arrangement other than one involving Boulder Valley.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
051 0252a

Danaher Corporation and MDS, Inc., In the Matter of

The Commission challenged Danaher’s proposed acquisition of MDS Analytical Technologies, requiring that MDS divest its assets related to its laser microdissection business. The proposed settlement is designed to preserve competition in the North American market for laser microdissection devices – a key tool for scientific research.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
091 0159

Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a corporation, and Robin Hood Holdings Limited, a limited liability company, In the Matter of

The Commission charged that Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s acquisition of Robin Hood Holdings Limited, owner of Arrow Pharmaceuticals, would have harmed consumers by eliminating future competition for important generic drugs used to treat Parkinson’s disease (cabergoline) and the side effects of chemotherapy (dronabinol). The Commission’s order requires the firms to sell assets related to the two drugs to FTC-approved buyers and to ensure the acquirers have the means to compete effectively in the future.

There is a related federal proceeding and two related administrative proceedings:

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
091 0116
Docket Number
C-4276