arizona
maricopa
county
medical
society
argued
november
decided
june
respondent
foundations
medical
care
organized
respondent
maricopa
county
medical
society
another
medical
society
promote
medicine
provide
community
competitive
alternative
existing
health
insurance
plans
foundations
agreement
member
doctors
established
maximum
fees
doctors
may
claim
full
payment
health
services
provided
policyholders
specified
insurance
plans
petitioner
state
arizona
filed
complaint
respondents
federal
district
alleging
engaged
illegal
conspiracy
violation
sherman
act
district
denied
state
motion
partial
summary
judgment
certified
interlocutory
appeal
question
whether
agreements
illegal
per
se
sherman
act
appeals
affirmed
denial
motion
partial
summary
judgment
held
certified
question
answered
without
evaluating
purpose
effect
agreements
full
trial
held
agreements
agreements
per
se
unlawful
sherman
act
pp
agreements
escape
condemnation
per
se
rule
agreements
horizontal
fix
maximum
prices
horizontal
agreements
fix
maximum
prices
legal
even
economic
footing
agreements
fix
minimum
uniform
prices
joseph
seagram
sons
albrecht
herald
per
se
rule
violated
price
restraint
tends
provide
economic
rewards
practitioners
regardless
skill
experience
training
willingness
employ
innovative
difficult
procedures
individual
cases
restraint
may
also
discourage
entry
market
may
deter
experimentation
new
developments
individual
entrepreneurs
fact
doctors
rather
nonprofessionals
parties
agreements
preclude
application
per
se
rule
respondents
claim
quality
professional
services
members
provide
enhanced
price
restraint
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
national
society
professional
engineers
distinguished
claim
price
restraint
make
easier
customers
pay
distinguish
medical
profession
provider
goods
services
pp
judiciary
little
antitrust
experience
health
care
industry
insufficient
reason
applying
per
se
rule
sherman
act
far
agreements
concerned
establishes
one
uniform
rule
applicable
industries
alike
oil
pp
per
se
rule
rendered
inapplicable
case
alleged
reason
agreements
issue
procompetitive
justification
anticompetitive
potential
agreements
justifies
facial
invalidation
even
procompetitive
justifications
offered
even
respondents
given
every
benefit
doubt
record
case
inconsistent
presumption
respondents
agreements
significantly
enhance
competition
said
doctors
fix
maximum
prices
doctors
may
able
efficiently
insurers
reason
believe
savings
might
accrue
arrangement
sufficiently
great
affect
competitiveness
kinds
insurance
plans
pp
respondents
schedules
involve
literal
sense
broadcast
music
columbia
broadcasting
system
distinguished
agreements
among
independent
competing
entrepreneurs
fit
squarely
horizontal
mold
pp
stevens
delivered
opinion
brennan
white
marshall
joined
powell
filed
dissenting
opinion
burger
rehnquist
joined
post
blackmun
took
part
consideration
decision
case
kenneth
reed
special
assistant
attorney
general
arizona
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
robert
corbin
attorney
general
charles
eger
assistant
attorney
general
alison
swan
patricia
metzger
philip
berelson
argued
cause
respondents
brief
robert
lesher
daniel
mcauliffe
deputy
solicitor
general
shapiro
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
solicitor
general
mccree
assistant
attorney
general
baxter
deputy
solicitor
general
wallace
barry
grossman
robert
nicholson
nancy
garrison
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
state
alabama
et
al
charles
graddick
attorney
general
alabama
susan
beth
farmer
sarah
spratling
james
drury
flowers
assistant
attorneys
general
wilson
condon
attorney
general
alaska
louise
assistant
attorney
general
steve
clark
attorney
general
arkansas
david
williams
deputy
attorney
general
macfarlane
attorney
general
colorado
lawrence
theis
first
assistant
attorney
general
carl
ajello
attorney
general
connecticut
robert
langer
john
lacey
john
looney
steven
rutstein
assistant
attorneys
general
richard
gebelein
attorney
general
delaware
robert
lobue
deputy
attorney
general
jim
smith
attorney
general
florida
bill
bryant
assistant
attorney
general
tany
hong
attorney
general
hawaii
sonia
faust
deputy
attorney
general
tyrone
fahner
attorney
general
illinois
thomas
genovese
assistant
attorney
general
linley
pearson
attorney
general
indiana
frank
baldwin
assistant
attorney
general
thomas
miller
attorney
general
iowa
john
perkins
assistant
attorney
general
robert
stephan
attorney
general
kansas
carl
anderson
assistant
attorney
general
steven
beshear
attorney
general
kentucky
james
ringo
assistant
attorney
general
william
guste
attorney
general
louisiana
john
flowers
assistant
attorney
general
james
tierney
attorney
general
maine
stephen
sachs
attorney
general
maryland
charles
monk
ii
assistant
attorney
general
frank
kelley
attorney
general
michigan
edwin
bladen
assistant
attorney
general
warren
spannaus
attorney
general
minnesota
stephen
kilgriff
special
assistant
attorney
general
bill
allain
attorney
general
mississippi
robert
sanders
special
assistant
attorney
general
john
ashcroft
attorney
general
missouri
william
newcomb
assistant
attorney
general
michael
greely
attorney
general
montana
jerome
cate
assistant
attorney
general
paul
douglas
attorney
general
nebraska
dale
comer
assistant
attorney
general
gregory
smith
attorney
general
new
hampshire
james
zazzali
attorney
general
new
jersey
laurel
price
deputy
attorney
general
jeff
bingaman
attorney
general
new
mexico
james
wechsler
richard
levin
assistant
attorneys
general
robert
abrams
attorney
general
new
york
lloyd
constantine
assistant
attorney
general
rufus
edmisten
attorney
general
north
carolina
cole
special
deputy
attorney
general
darrell
hancock
associate
attorney
general
robert
wefald
attorney
general
north
dakota
gary
lee
assistant
attorney
general
jan
eric
cartwright
attorney
general
oklahoma
gary
gardenshire
assistant
attorney
general
dennis
roberts
ii
attorney
general
rhode
island
patrick
quinlan
special
assistant
attorney
general
daniel
mcleod
attorney
general
south
carolina
john
cox
assistant
attorney
general
mark
meierhenry
attorney
general
south
dakota
james
mcmahon
assistant
attorney
general
william
leech
attorney
general
tennessee
william
haynes
deputy
attorney
general
mark
white
attorney
general
texas
linda
aaker
assistant
attorney
general
david
wilkinson
attorney
general
utah
peter
collins
assistant
attorney
general
john
easton
attorney
general
vermont
jay
ashman
assistant
attorney
general
kenneth
eikenberry
attorney
general
washington
john
ellis
assistant
attorney
general
chauncey
browning
attorney
general
west
virginia
charles
brown
deputy
attorney
general
bronson
la
follette
attorney
general
wisconsin
michael
zaleski
assistant
attorney
general
john
troughton
attorney
general
wyoming
gay
venderpoel
assistant
attorney
general
state
ohio
william
brown
attorney
general
charles
weller
doreen
johnson
eugene
mcshane
assistant
attorneys
general
chalmette
general
hospital
et
al
john
stassi
ii
hospital
building
john
train
iii
john
jordan
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
william
kopit
robert
moses
american
association
foundations
medical
care
richard
epstein
jay
hedgepeth
american
hospital
association
laurence
popofsky
peter
sloss
california
dental
service
alfred
miller
filed
brief
american
association
retired
persons
et
al
amici
curiae
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
question
presented
whether
sherman
act
stat
amended
violated
agreements
among
competing
physicians
setting
majority
vote
maximum
fees
may
claim
full
payment
health
services
provided
policyholders
specified
insurance
plans
appeals
ninth
circuit
held
question
answered
without
evaluating
actual
purpose
effect
agreements
full
trial
undisputed
facts
disclose
violation
statute
granted
certiorari
reverse
october
state
arizona
filed
civil
complaint
two
county
medical
societies
two
foundations
medical
care
medical
societies
organized
complaint
alleged
defendants
engaged
illegal
conspiracies
defendants
filed
answers
one
medical
societies
dismissed
consent
parties
conducted
limited
amount
pretrial
discovery
state
moved
partial
summary
judgment
issue
liability
district
denied
motion
entered
order
pursuant
certifying
interlocutory
appeal
question
whether
fmc
membership
agreements
contain
promise
abide
maximum
fee
schedules
illegal
per
se
section
sherman
act
appeals
divided
vote
affirmed
district
order
refusing
enter
partial
summary
judgment
three
judges
panel
different
view
case
judge
sneed
persuaded
challenged
practice
per
se
violation
judge
kennedy
although
concurring
cautioned
found
reimbursement
schedules
per
se
proper
examination
practices
rule
reason
trial
reveal
proscribed
adverse
effect
competition
foreclosed
later
date
evidence
concluding
schedules
constitute
per
se
violations
ibid
judge
larson
dissented
expressing
view
per
se
rule
apply
alternatively
analysis
condemn
arrangement
even
per
se
approach
warranted
ultimate
question
presented
certiorari
petition
whether
partial
summary
judgment
entered
district
must
assume
respondents
version
disputed
issue
fact
correct
therefore
first
review
relevant
undisputed
facts
identify
factual
basis
respondents
contention
agreements
fee
schedules
unlawful
ii
maricopa
foundation
medical
care
nonprofit
arizona
corporation
composed
licensed
doctors
medicine
osteopathy
podiatry
engaged
private
practice
approximately
doctors
representing
practitioners
maricopa
county
members
maricopa
foundation
organized
purpose
promoting
medicine
provide
community
competitive
alternative
existing
health
insurance
plans
foundation
performs
three
primary
activities
establishes
schedule
maximum
fees
participating
doctors
agree
accept
payment
full
services
performed
patients
insured
plans
approved
foundation
reviews
medical
necessity
appropriateness
treatment
provided
members
insured
persons
authorized
draw
checks
insurance
company
accounts
pay
doctors
services
performed
covered
patients
performing
functions
foundation
considered
insurance
administrator
director
arizona
department
insurance
participating
doctors
however
financial
interest
operation
foundation
pima
foundation
medical
care
includes
member
doctors
performs
similar
functions
purposes
litigation
parties
seem
regard
activities
two
foundations
essentially
challenge
made
peer
review
claim
administration
functions
foundations
allege
two
activities
make
necessary
engage
practice
establishing
schedules
time
lawsuit
filed
foundation
made
use
relative
values
conversion
factors
compiling
fee
schedule
conversion
factor
dollar
amount
used
determine
fees
particular
medical
specialty
thus
example
conversion
factors
medicine
laboratory
respectively
relative
value
schedule
provides
numerical
weight
different
medical
service
thus
office
consultation
lesser
value
home
visit
relative
value
multiplied
conversion
factor
determine
maximum
fee
fee
schedule
revised
periodically
foundation
board
trustees
solicit
advice
various
medical
societies
need
change
either
relative
values
conversion
factors
respective
specialties
board
formulate
new
fee
schedule
submit
vote
entire
membership
fee
schedules
limit
amount
member
doctors
may
recover
services
performed
patients
insured
plans
approved
foundations
obtain
approval
insurers
including
employers
well
insurance
companies
agree
pay
doctors
charges
scheduled
amounts
exchange
doctors
agree
accept
amounts
payment
full
services
doctors
free
charge
higher
fees
uninsured
patients
also
may
charge
patient
less
scheduled
maxima
patient
insured
plan
guaranteed
complete
coverage
full
amount
medical
bills
treated
foundation
member
free
go
nonmember
physician
still
covered
charges
exceed
schedule
must
pay
excess
nonmember
physician
may
charge
impact
foundation
fee
schedules
medical
fees
insurance
premiums
matter
dispute
state
arizona
contends
periodic
upward
revisions
schedules
effect
stabilizing
enhancing
level
actual
charges
physicians
increasing
level
fees
turn
increases
insurance
premiums
foundations
hand
argue
schedules
impose
meaningful
limit
physicians
charges
advance
agreement
doctors
accept
maxima
enables
insurance
carriers
limit
calculate
efficiently
risks
underwrite
therefore
serves
effective
mechanism
saved
patients
insurers
millions
dollars
although
attorneys
general
different
well
solicitor
general
certain
organizations
representing
consumers
medical
services
filed
amicus
curiae
briefs
supporting
state
arizona
position
merits
must
assume
respondents
view
genuine
issues
fact
correct
assumption
presents
answer
question
whether
sherman
act
prohibits
competing
doctors
adopting
revising
agreeing
use
schedule
implementation
insurance
plans
iii
respondents
recognize
decisions
establish
agreements
unlawful
face
argue
per
se
rule
govern
case
agreements
issue
horizontal
fix
maximum
prices
among
members
profession
industry
judiciary
little
antitrust
experience
alleged
procompetitive
justifications
examine
arguments
pause
consider
history
meaning
per
se
rule
agreements
section
sherman
act
literally
prohibits
every
agreement
restraint
trade
joint
traffic
recognized
congress
intended
literal
interpretation
word
every
since
standard
oil
new
jersey
analyzed
restraints
rule
reason
name
suggests
rule
reason
requires
factfinder
decide
whether
circumstances
case
restrictive
practice
imposes
unreasonable
restraint
competition
elaborate
inquiry
reasonableness
challenged
business
practice
entails
significant
costs
litigation
effect
purpose
practice
often
extensive
complex
northern
pacific
judges
often
lack
expert
understanding
industrial
market
structures
behavior
determine
confidence
practice
effect
competition
topco
associates
result
process
given
case
may
provide
little
certainty
guidance
legality
practice
another
context
northern
pacific
supra
costs
judging
business
practices
rule
reason
however
reduced
recognition
per
se
rules
experience
particular
kind
restraint
enables
predict
confidence
rule
reason
condemn
applied
conclusive
presumption
restraint
unreasonable
every
rule
general
application
match
presumed
actual
imperfect
sake
business
certainty
litigation
efficiency
tolerated
invalidation
agreements
fullblown
inquiry
might
proved
reasonable
thus
standard
oil
recognized
inquiry
rule
reason
ended
agreement
proved
conclusive
presumption
brought
agreements
within
statute
able
state
often
decided
always
assumed
uniform
controlling
substantial
manner
trade
business
interstate
commerce
prohibited
sherman
law
trenton
potteries
aim
result
every
agreement
effective
elimination
one
form
competition
power
fix
prices
whether
reasonably
exercised
involves
power
control
market
fix
arbitrary
unreasonable
prices
reasonable
price
fixed
today
may
economic
business
changes
become
unreasonable
price
tomorrow
established
may
maintained
unchanged
absence
competition
secured
agreement
price
reasonable
fixed
agreements
create
potential
power
may
well
held
unreasonable
unlawful
restraints
without
necessity
minute
inquiry
whether
particular
price
reasonable
unreasonable
fixed
without
placing
government
enforcing
sherman
law
burden
ascertaining
day
day
whether
become
unreasonable
mere
variation
economic
conditions
combination
tampers
price
structures
engaged
unlawful
activity
even
though
members
group
position
control
market
extent
raised
lowered
stabilized
prices
directly
interfering
free
play
market
forces
act
places
schemes
beyond
pale
protects
vital
part
economy
degree
interference
congress
left
us
determination
whether
particular
schemes
wise
unwise
healthy
destructive
permitted
cry
ruinous
competition
competitive
evils
defense
conspiracies
allowed
genuine
fancied
competitive
abuses
legal
justification
schemes
good
intentions
members
combination
shift
made
must
done
congress
certainly
congress
left
us
choice
act
created
authorized
creation
special
exception
favor
oil
industry
whatever
may
peculiar
problems
characteristics
sherman
act
far
agreements
concerned
establishes
one
uniform
rule
applicable
industries
alike
agreements
less
fix
minimum
prices
cripple
freedom
traders
thereby
restrain
ability
sell
accordance
judgment
reaffirm
said
oil
sherman
act
combination
formed
purpose
effect
raising
depressing
fixing
pegging
stabilizing
price
commodity
interstate
foreign
commerce
illegal
per
se
maximum
minimum
price
fixing
may
different
consequences
many
situations
schemes
fix
maximum
prices
substituting
perhaps
erroneous
judgment
seller
forces
competitive
market
may
severely
intrude
upon
ability
buyers
compete
survive
market
competition
even
single
product
cast
single
mold
maximum
prices
may
fixed
low
dealer
furnish
services
essential
value
goods
consumer
furnish
services
conveniences
consumers
desire
willing
pay
maximum
price
fixing
may
channel
distribution
large
specifically
advantaged
dealers
otherwise
subject
significant
nonprice
competition
moreover
actual
price
charged
maximum
price
scheme
nearly
always
fixed
maximum
price
increasingly
likely
maximum
price
approaches
actual
cost
dealer
scheme
tends
acquire
attributes
arrangement
fixing
minimum
prices
omitted
decisions
foreclose
argument
agreements
issue
escape
per
se
condemnation
horizontal
fix
maximum
prices
albrecht
place
horizontal
agreements
fix
maximum
prices
legal
even
economic
footing
agreements
fix
minimum
uniform
prices
per
se
rule
grounded
faith
price
competition
market
force
policy
low
selling
prices
price
eliminating
competition
rahl
price
competition
price
fixing
rule
preface
perspective
nw
rev
case
rule
violated
price
restraint
tends
provide
economic
rewards
practitioners
regardless
skill
experience
training
willingness
employ
innovative
difficult
procedures
individual
cases
restraint
also
may
discourage
entry
market
may
deter
experimentation
new
developments
individual
entrepreneurs
may
masquerade
agreement
fix
uniform
prices
may
future
take
character
fact
doctors
rather
nonprofessionals
parties
agreements
support
respondents
position
goldfarb
virginia
state
bar
stated
public
service
aspect
features
professions
may
require
particular
practice
properly
viewed
violation
sherman
act
another
context
treated
differently
see
national
society
professional
engineers
agreements
case
however
premised
public
service
ethical
norms
respondents
argue
defendants
goldfarb
professional
engineers
quality
professional
service
members
provide
enhanced
price
restraint
respondents
claim
relief
per
se
rule
simply
doctors
agreement
charge
certain
insureds
fixed
price
facilitates
successful
marketing
attractive
insurance
plan
claim
price
restraint
make
easier
customers
pay
distinguish
medical
profession
provider
goods
services
equally
unpersuaded
argument
apply
per
se
rule
case
judiciary
little
antitrust
experience
health
care
industry
argument
quite
obviously
inconsistent
unequivocal
terms
stated
hatever
may
peculiar
problems
characteristics
sherman
act
far
agreements
concerned
establishes
one
uniform
rule
applicable
industries
alike
also
stated
elimination
competitive
evils
industry
legal
justification
agreements
yet
appeals
refused
apply
per
se
rule
case
part
health
care
industry
far
removed
competitive
model
consistent
prediction
result
reasoning
adoption
appeals
legal
standard
based
reasonableness
fixed
prices
inquiry
often
condemned
finally
argument
per
se
rule
must
rejustified
every
industry
subject
significant
antitrust
litigation
ignores
rationale
per
se
rules
part
avoid
necessity
incredibly
complicated
prolonged
economic
investigation
entire
history
industry
involved
well
related
industries
effort
determine
large
whether
particular
restraint
unreasonable
inquiry
often
wholly
fruitless
undertaken
northern
pacific
respondents
principal
argument
per
se
rule
inapplicable
agreements
alleged
procompetitive
justifications
argument
indicates
misunderstanding
per
se
concept
anticompetitive
potential
inherent
agreements
justifies
facial
invalidation
even
procompetitive
justifications
offered
claims
enhanced
competition
unlikely
prove
significant
particular
case
adhere
rule
law
justified
general
application
even
respondents
given
every
benefit
doubt
limited
record
case
inconsistent
presumption
respondents
agreements
significantly
enhance
competition
respondents
contend
fee
schedules
procompetitive
make
possible
provide
consumers
health
care
uniquely
desirable
form
insurance
coverage
otherwise
exist
features
insurance
plans
stress
choice
doctors
complete
insurance
coverage
lower
premiums
first
two
characteristics
however
hardly
unique
plans
since
doctors
relevant
market
members
either
foundation
guarantee
complete
coverage
applies
insured
chooses
physician
elects
go
nonfoundation
doctor
may
required
pay
portion
doctor
fee
fair
presume
however
least
doctors
markets
charge
usual
customary
reasonable
fee
typical
insurers
willing
reimburse
full
thus
maricopa
pima
counties
well
parts
country
insured
asks
doctor
insurance
coverage
complete
presumably
cases
doctor
say
yes
cases
say
true
binding
assurance
complete
insurance
coverage
well
respondents
potential
lower
insurance
premiums
obtained
insurer
doctor
agree
advance
maximum
fee
doctor
accept
full
payment
particular
service
even
fee
schedule
therefore
desirable
necessary
doctors
price
fixing
record
indicates
arizona
comprehensive
program
foster
children
administered
maricopa
foundation
pursuant
contract
schedule
prescribed
state
agency
rather
doctors
program
blue
shield
plan
challenged
group
life
health
insurance
royal
drug
indicate
insurers
capable
fixing
maximum
reimbursable
prices
also
obtaining
binding
agreements
providers
guaranteeing
insured
full
reimbursement
participating
provider
fee
light
examples
surprising
nothing
record
even
arguably
supports
conclusion
type
insurance
program
function
fee
schedules
set
different
way
said
doctors
fix
maximum
prices
doctors
may
able
efficiently
insurers
validity
assumption
far
obvious
event
reason
believe
savings
might
accrue
arrangement
sufficiently
great
affect
competitiveness
kinds
insurance
plans
entirely
possible
potential
actual
power
foundations
dictate
terms
insurance
plans
may
offset
theoretical
efficiencies
upon
respondents
defense
ultimately
rests
adherence
per
se
rule
grounded
economic
prediction
judicial
convenience
business
certainty
also
recognition
respective
roles
judiciary
congress
regulating
economy
topco
associates
given
generality
enforcement
sherman
act
required
provide
much
substantive
content
articulating
rules
law
clarity
adhering
rules
justified
general
application
however
enhance
legislative
prerogative
amend
law
respondents
arguments
application
per
se
rule
case
therefore
better
directed
legislature
congress
may
consider
exception
free
read
statute
iv
declined
respondents
invitation
cut
back
per
se
rule
price
fixing
left
respondents
argument
fee
schedules
involve
price
fixing
literal
sense
argument
respondents
rely
upon
broadcast
music
columbia
broadcasting
system
broadcast
music
confronted
antitrust
challenge
marketing
right
use
copyrighted
compositions
derived
entire
membership
american
society
composers
authors
publishers
ascap
blanket
license
entirely
different
product
one
composer
able
sell
although
little
competition
among
individual
composers
separate
compositions
arrangement
place
restraint
right
individual
copyright
owner
sell
compositions
separately
buyer
price
necessary
consequence
creation
blanket
license
price
established
held
delegation
composers
ascap
power
fix
price
blanket
license
species
agreements
categorically
forbidden
sherman
act
record
disclosed
price
fixing
literal
sense
case
fundamentally
different
foundations
composed
individual
practitioners
compete
one
another
patients
neither
foundations
doctors
sell
insurance
derive
profits
sale
health
insurance
policies
members
foundations
sell
medical
services
combination
form
foundation
permit
sell
different
product
combination
merely
permitted
sell
services
certain
customers
fixed
prices
arguably
affect
prevailing
market
price
medical
care
foundations
analogous
partnerships
joint
arrangements
persons
otherwise
competitors
pool
capital
share
risks
loss
well
opportunities
profit
joint
ventures
partnership
regarded
single
firm
competing
sellers
market
agreement
attack
agreement
among
hundreds
competing
doctors
concerning
price
offer
services
substantial
number
consumers
true
surgeons
anesthesiologists
psychiatrists
doctors
sell
package
three
kinds
services
clinic
offered
complete
medical
coverage
flat
fee
cooperating
doctors
type
partnership
arrangement
agreement
among
doctors
perfectly
proper
fee
agreements
disclosed
record
case
among
independent
competing
entrepreneurs
fit
squarely
horizontal
mold
judgment
appeals
reversed
ordered
footnotes
district
offered
three
reasons
decision
first
citing
continental
gte
sylvania
stated
recent
antitrust
trend
appears
emerging
rule
reason
preferred
method
determining
whether
particular
practice
violation
antitrust
law
app
pet
cert
second
two
cases
invalidating
maximum
joseph
seagram
sons
albrecht
herald
need
read
establishing
per
se
rule
third
profession
involved
approach
plaintiff
motion
partial
summary
judgment
issue
liability
granted
insufficient
evidence
purpose
effect
allegedly
unlawful
practices
power
defendants
district
also
denied
defendants
motion
dismiss
based
ground
engaged
business
insurance
within
meaning
act
et
seq
see
app
pet
cert
defendants
appeal
portion
district
order
quoted
language
appeals
phrasing
question
district
entered
order
june
providing
relevant
part
plaintiff
motion
partial
summary
judgment
issue
liability
denied
leave
file
similar
motion
based
additional
evidence
appropriate
app
pet
cert
order
entered
june
amended
addition
following
determination
rule
reason
approach
used
analyzing
challenged
conduct
instant
case
determine
whether
violation
section
sherman
act
occurred
involves
question
law
substantial
ground
difference
opinion
immediate
appeal
order
denying
plaintiff
motion
partial
summary
judgment
issue
liability
may
materially
advance
ultimate
determination
litigation
therefore
foregoing
order
determination
certified
interlocutory
appeal
pursuant
judge
sneed
explained
reluctance
apply
per
se
rule
substantially
follows
record
indicate
actual
purpose
arrangements
effect
competition
health
care
industry
clear
whether
assumptions
made
typical
price
restraints
carried
industry
recently
applied
antitrust
laws
professions
moreover
already
significant
obstacles
pure
competition
industry
must
compare
prices
obtain
arrangements
otherwise
prevail
rather
prevail
ideal
competitive
conditions
furthermore
ninth
circuit
applied
joseph
seagram
sons
albrecht
herald
horizontal
agreements
establish
maximum
prices
economic
assumptions
underlying
rule
maximum
price
fixing
sound
judge
kennedy
concurring
opinion
concluded
follows
appear
controlling
definitive
analysis
market
impact
caused
arrangements
scrutiny
case
trial
may
reveal
arrangements
least
essentials
peculiar
medical
industry
condemned
judge
larson
stated
part
defendants
formulated
dispersed
relative
value
guides
conversion
factor
lists
together
used
set
upper
limit
fees
received
payors
clear
activities
constituted
maximum
competitors
disregarding
special
industry
facts
conduct
per
se
illegal
precedent
alone
mandate
application
per
se
standard
find
nothing
nature
either
medical
profession
health
care
industry
warrant
exemption
per
se
rules
citations
omitted
health
insurance
plans
type
typical
insurance
plan
insurer
agrees
insured
reimburse
insured
usual
customary
reasonable
medical
charges
insurer
insured
extent
excess
charges
bears
economic
risk
insured
require
medical
treatment
alternative
type
insurance
plan
illustrated
health
maintenance
organizations
authorized
health
maintenance
organization
act
et
seq
form
prepaid
health
plan
consumer
pays
fixed
periodic
fee
functionally
integrated
group
doctors
exchange
group
agreement
provide
medical
treatment
subscriber
might
need
economic
risk
thus
borne
doctors
record
contains
divergent
figures
percentage
pima
county
doctors
belong
foundation
publication
foundation
reported
affidavit
executive
director
foundation
reported
district
appeals
rendered
judgment
foundations
apparently
discontinued
use
relative
values
conversion
factors
formulating
fee
schedules
moreover
maricopa
foundation
year
amended
bylaws
provide
fee
schedule
adopted
majority
vote
board
trustees
vote
members
challenge
foundation
activities
described
text
however
mooted
changes
see
grant
parties
disagree
whether
increases
fee
schedules
cause
result
increases
prevailing
rate
medical
services
relevant
markets
appears
agreement
however
physicians
maricopa
county
bill
maximum
reimbursement
levels
set
maricopa
foundation
seven
different
insurance
companies
underwrite
health
insurance
plans
approved
maricopa
foundation
three
companies
underwrite
plans
approved
pima
foundation
record
contains
firm
data
portion
health
care
market
covered
plans
state
relies
upon
analysis
indicating
insurance
plans
endorsed
maricopa
foundation
prepaid
health
care
market
respondents
contest
accuracy
analysis
every
contract
combination
form
trust
otherwise
conspiracy
restraint
trade
commerce
among
several
foreign
nations
declared
illegal
justice
brandeis
provided
classic
statement
rule
reason
chicago
bd
trade
true
test
legality
whether
restraint
imposed
merely
regulates
perhaps
thereby
promotes
competition
whether
may
suppress
even
destroy
competition
determine
question
must
ordinarily
consider
facts
peculiar
business
restraint
applied
condition
restraint
imposed
nature
restraint
effect
actual
probable
history
restraint
evil
believed
exist
reason
adopting
particular
remedy
purpose
end
sought
attained
relevant
facts
good
intention
save
otherwise
objectionable
regulation
reverse
knowledge
intent
may
help
interpret
facts
predict
consequences
thoughtful
brief
discussion
costs
benefits
versus
per
se
rule
analysis
agreements
see
scherer
industrial
market
structure
economic
performance
professor
scherer
opinion
shared
majority
american
economists
concerned
antitrust
policy
present
legal
framework
costs
implementing
rule
reason
exceed
benefits
derived
considering
restrictive
agreement
merits
prohibiting
appear
unreasonable
among
practices
courts
heretofore
deemed
unlawful
price
fixing
division
markets
group
boycotts
tying
arrangements
northern
pacific
citations
omitted
see
columbia
steel
thus
applying
per
se
rule
invalidate
restrictive
practice
topco
associates
stated
hether
decide
case
way
rule
reason
used
district
irrelevant
issue
us
made
point
continental
gte
sylvania
per
se
rules
thus
require
make
broad
generalizations
social
utility
particular
commercial
practices
probability
anticompetitive
consequences
result
practice
severity
consequences
must
balanced
procompetitive
consequences
cases
fit
generalization
may
arise
per
se
rule
reflects
judgment
cases
sufficiently
common
important
justify
time
expense
necessary
identify
albrecht
herald
harlan
dissenting
true
albrecht
agreement
involved
vertical
arrangement
maximum
resale
prices
fixed
case
also
involved
agreement
among
competitors
impose
resale
price
restraint
event
horizontal
restraints
generally
less
defensible
vertical
restraints
see
continental
gte
sylvania
easterbrook
maximum
price
fixing
chi
rev
argument
confused
established
position
new
per
se
rule
justified
judiciary
obtains
considerable
experience
particular
type
restraint
challenged
see
white
motor
unwillingness
examine
economic
justification
particular
application
per
se
rule
price
fixing
inconsistent
reexamination
general
validity
per
se
rule
rejected
continental
gte
sylvania
supra
health
care
industry
moreover
presents
particularly
difficult
area
first
step
understanding
recognize
access
medical
profession
time
consuming
expensive
applicant
society
generally
also
numerous
government
subventions
costs
medical
care
created
demand
supply
function
medical
services
artificially
high
present
supply
demand
functions
medical
services
way
approximate
exist
purely
private
competitive
order
accurate
description
functions
moreover
available
thus
lack
baselines
measured
distance
present
supply
demand
functions
exist
ideal
competitive
conditions
perforce
must
take
industry
exists
absent
challenged
feature
baseline
measuring
anticompetitive
impact
relevant
inquiry
becomes
whether
fees
paid
doctors
system
less
payable
fmc
maximum
fee
agreement
put
differently
confronted
industry
widely
deviant
reasonably
free
competitive
model
agriculture
proper
inquiry
whether
practice
enhances
prices
charged
services
simplified
economic
terms
issue
whether
maximum
fee
arrangement
better
permits
attainment
monopolist
goal
matching
marginal
cost
marginal
revenue
fact
obstructs
end
ibid
first
case
arising
sherman
act
required
pass
sufficiency
defendants
plea
established
rates
actually
beneficial
consumers
assuming
factual
validity
plea
rejected
defense
matter
law
freight
national
society
professional
engineers
referred
judge
taft
classic
rejection
argument
competitors
may
lawfully
agree
sell
goods
price
long
price
reasonable
see
addyston
pipe
steel
aff
latest
case
reiterated
point
excuse
prices
fixed
reasonable
catalano
target
sales
whatever
economic
justification
particular
agreements
may
thought
law
permit
inquiry
reasonableness
banned
actual
potential
threat
central
nervous
system
economy
oil
according
respondents
figures
presumption
well
founded
see
brief
respondents
perceive
respondents
claim
procompetitive
justification
fee
schedules
rest
premise
fee
schedules
actually
reduce
medical
fees
accordingly
reduce
insurance
premiums
thereby
enhancing
competition
health
insurance
industry
argument
merely
restate
position
fixed
prices
reasonable
lower
free
competition
yield
arguable
however
existence
fee
schedule
whether
fixed
doctors
insurers
makes
easier
extent
less
expensive
insurers
calculate
risks
underwrite
arrive
appropriate
reimbursement
insured
claims
according
federal
trade
commission
staff
report
blue
shield
plans
determined
advance
much
pay
particular
procedures
prepared
fee
schedules
reflecting
determinations
fee
schedules
still
used
approximately
percent
blue
shield
contracts
bureau
competition
federal
trade
commission
medical
participation
control
blue
shield
certain
medical
prepayment
plans
suggest
blue
shield
plans
actually
controlled
doctors
indeed
report
discusses
length
belief
given
rise
considerable
antitrust
litigation
see
also
kass
pautler
bureau
economics
federal
trade
commission
staff
report
physician
control
blue
shield
plans
case
present
question
whether
insurer
may
consistent
sherman
act
fix
fee
schedule
enter
bilateral
contracts
individual
doctors
question
reached
group
life
health
insurance
royal
drug
see
amicus
curiae
brief
expressed
opinion
arrangement
legal
unless
plaintiffs
establish
conspiracy
among
providers
work
brief
amicus
curiae
pp
point
simply
record
provides
factual
basis
respondents
claim
doctors
must
fix
fee
schedule
program
foundation
performs
peer
review
function
well
administrative
function
paying
doctors
claims
order
create
insurance
plan
doctor
agree
accept
full
payment
fee
prescribed
fixed
schedule
someone
must
canvass
doctors
determine
maximum
prices
high
enough
attract
sufficient
numbers
individual
doctors
sign
low
enough
make
insurance
plan
competitive
case
canvassing
function
performed
foundation
foundation
deals
insurer
seem
insurer
simply
bypass
foundation
performing
canvassing
function
dealing
doctors
foundation
plan
doctor
must
look
schedule
fixed
competitors
vote
approval
plan
plan
approved
majority
vote
must
continue
revoke
foundation
membership
similar
extent
protracted
process
occur
insurer
offered
schedule
doctor
case
appears
fees
set
group
substantial
power
market
medical
services
competition
among
insurance
companies
sale
medical
insurance
circumstances
insurance
companies
likely
significantly
greater
bargaining
power
monopoly
doctors
individual
consumers
medical
services
congress
course
make
per
se
rules
inapplicable
cases
leave
courts
free
ramble
wilds
economic
theory
order
maintain
flexible
approach
topco
associates
indeed
exempted
certain
industries
full
reach
sherman
act
see
act
agricultural
cooperatives
act
insurance
act
rail
motor
carrier
bureaus
newspaper
joint
operating
agreements
thus
extent
blanket
license
different
product
ascap
really
joint
sales
agency
offering
individual
goods
many
sellers
separate
seller
offering
blanket
license
individual
compositions
raw
material
omitted
fee
set
competition
among
individual
copyright
owners
fee
use
compositions
covered
license
blanket
license
wholly
equated
simple
horizontal
arrangement
among
competitors
ascap
set
price
blanket
license
license
quite
different
anything
individual
owner
issue
individual
composers
authors
neither
agreed
sell
individually
market
use
blanket
license
mask
price
fixing
markets
omitted
may
true
becoming
member
foundation
individual
practitioner
obtains
competitive
advantage
market
medical
services
unilaterally
obtain
competitive
advantage
ability
attract
customers
people
value
guarantee
full
health
coverage
choice
doctors
indicated
setting
price
doctors
necessary
consequence
arrangement
insurer
doctor
agrees
charge
certain
insured
customers
fixed
price
justice
powell
chief
justice
justice
rehnquist
join
dissenting
medical
care
plan
condemned
today
comparatively
new
method
providing
insured
medical
services
predetermined
maximum
costs
involves
coercion
medical
insurance
companies
physicians
patients
alike
free
participate
choose
face
plan
seems
public
interest
state
arizona
challenged
plan
per
se
antitrust
theory
district
denied
state
summary
judgment
motion
novelty
issue
certified
question
per
se
liability
interlocutory
appeal
summary
judgment
record
inferences
therefrom
must
viewed
light
favorable
respondents
nevertheless
rather
identifying
clearly
controlling
principles
remanding
decision
completed
record
makes
per
se
judgment
invalidity
respondents
contention
consumers
medical
services
benefited
substantially
plan
given
short
shrift
concedes
parties
conducted
limited
amount
pretrial
discovery
ante
leaving
undeveloped
facts
critical
informed
decision
case
think
today
decision
incomplete
record
consistent
proper
judicial
resolution
issue
complexity
novelty
importance
public
therefore
dissent
maricopa
pima
foundations
medical
care
professional
associations
physicians
organized
medical
societies
respective
counties
foundations
established
make
available
type
prepaid
medical
insurance
plan
aspects
target
litigation
plan
foundations
insure
risks
rather
key
function
secure
agreement
among
member
physicians
schedule
specific
medical
services
fee
schedule
agreed
upon
following
process
consultation
balloting
foundations
invite
private
insurance
companies
participate
offering
medical
insurance
policies
based
upon
schedule
insurers
agree
offer
complete
reimbursement
insureds
full
amount
medical
bills
long
bills
exceed
schedule
insured
plan
free
go
physician
physician
bills
foundation
directly
services
performed
insured
chosen
physician
foundation
member
bill
exceeds
foundation
schedule
insured
liable
excess
billing
physician
foundation
member
foundation
disallows
excess
pursuant
agreement
physician
executed
upon
joining
foundation
thus
plan
offers
complete
coverage
medical
expenses
still
permits
insured
choose
physician
ii
case
comes
us
plaintiff
motion
summary
judgment
limited
discovery
therefore
noted
inferences
drawn
record
must
viewed
light
favorable
respondents
diebold
requires
acknowledges
consider
foundation
arrangement
one
impose
meaningful
limit
physicians
charges
enables
insurance
carriers
limit
calculate
efficiently
risks
underwrite
therefore
serves
effective
cost
containment
mechanism
saved
patients
insurers
millions
dollars
ante
question
whether
condemn
arrangement
forthwith
sherman
act
law
designed
benefit
consumers
several
aspects
record
key
significance
stressed
first
foundation
arrangement
forecloses
competition
unlike
classic
cartel
agreement
foundation
plan
instruct
potential
competitors
deal
consumers
following
terms
others
rather
physicians
participate
foundation
plan
free
associate
medical
insurance
plans
fee
level
high
low
directly
serve
uninsured
patients
fee
level
high
low
similarly
insurers
participate
foundation
plan
also
remain
liberty
business
outside
plan
physician
foundation
member
fee
level
physicians
locked
plan
one
year
membership
see
supra
thus
freedom
compete
well
freedom
withdraw
preserved
cites
case
remotely
comparable
plan
agreement
condemned
per
se
basis
second
record
must
find
insurers
represent
consumer
interests
normally
consumers
search
high
quality
low
prices
consumer
insured
chosen
medical
insurance
plan
largely
indifferent
amount
physician
charges
coverage
full
plan
insurer
however
indifferent
keep
insurance
premiums
competitive
level
remain
profitable
insurers
including
contracts
foundations
step
consumer
shoes
incentive
contain
medical
costs
indeed
insurers
may
parties
effective
power
restrain
medical
costs
given
difficulty
patients
experience
comparing
price
quality
professional
service
medical
care
record
us
evidence
opposition
foundation
plan
insurance
companies
matter
members
public
rather
seven
insurers
willingly
chosen
contract
foundations
task
developing
schedules
record
us
must
infer
foundation
plan
open
insurers
physicians
public
fact
benefited
consumers
enabl
ing
insurance
carriers
limit
calculate
efficiently
risks
underwrite
ante
nevertheless
even
though
case
incomplete
summary
judgment
record
conclusively
draws
contrary
inferences
support
per
se
judgment
iii
settled
law
arrangement
labeled
price
fixing
condemned
per
se
equally
well
settled
characterization
applied
talisman
every
arrangement
involves
literal
fixing
prices
many
lawful
contracts
mergers
partnerships
fix
prices
cases
require
discerning
approach
inquiry
antitrust
case
simply
one
determining
whether
two
potential
competitors
literally
fixed
price
rather
necessary
characterize
challenged
conduct
falling
within
without
category
behavior
apply
label
per
se
price
fixing
often
always
simple
matter
broadcast
music
columbia
broadcasting
system
characterizing
arrangement
per
se
agreement
meriting
condemnation
determine
whether
naked
restrain
trade
purpose
except
stifling
competition
topco
associates
quoting
white
motor
see
also
continental
gte
sylvania
determination
necessary
departure
standard
must
based
upon
demonstrable
economic
effect
rather
upon
formalistic
line
drawing
part
inquiry
must
determine
whether
procompetitive
economies
arrangement
purportedly
makes
possible
substantial
realizable
absence
agreement
example
national
society
professional
engineers
held
unlawful
per
se
violation
engineering
association
canon
ethics
prohibited
competitive
bidding
members
parties
compiled
voluminous
discovery
trial
record
carefully
considered
rather
rejected
hand
engineers
affirmative
defense
agreement
competitive
bidding
tempt
engineers
inferior
work
threaten
public
health
safety
refused
accept
defense
merits
confirm
ed
rather
refut
ed
anticompetitive
purpose
effect
agreement
ibid
analysis
incident
price
fixing
characterization
found
substantial
procompetitive
efficiencies
see
also
catalano
target
sales
challenged
arrangement
condemned
lacked
procompetitive
justification
apparent
potentially
redeeming
value
broadcast
music
columbia
broadcasting
system
supra
minimum
price
fixing
literal
sense
nevertheless
agreed
unanimously
arrangement
copyright
clearinghouses
sold
performance
rights
entire
libraries
blanket
rather
individual
basis
warrant
condemnation
per
se
basis
individual
licensing
allowed
competition
copyright
owners
reasoned
licensing
blanket
basis
yielded
substantial
efficiencies
otherwise
realized
see
indeed
blanket
license
extent
different
product
sum
fact
health
insurance
plan
literally
involves
setting
ceiling
prices
among
competing
physicians
justify
condemning
plan
per
se
illegal
clear
record
agreement
among
physicians
plainly
anticompetitive
elaborate
study
effects
needed
establish
illegality
may
properly
make
per
se
judgment
national
society
professional
engineers
supra
cases
demonstrate
per
se
label
assigned
without
carefully
considering
substantial
benefits
procompetitive
justifications
especially
true
agreement
attack
novel
case
see
broadcast
music
supra
topco
associates
supra
considerable
experience
certain
business
relationships
courts
classify
per
se
violations
iv
acknowledges
per
se
ban
price
fixing
invoked
every
time
potential
competitors
literally
fix
prices
ante
one
also
expected
acknowledge
per
se
characterization
inappropriate
challenged
agreement
plan
achieves
public
procompetitive
benefits
otherwise
attainable
neither
provide
alternative
criteria
per
se
characterization
determined
content
simply
brand
type
plan
price
fixing
describe
agreement
broadcast
music
also
literally
involved
fixing
prices
fundamentally
different
ante
fact
however
two
agreements
similar
important
respects
involved
competitors
resulted
pricing
arrangement
also
prompted
need
better
service
consumers
arrangement
apparently
makes
possible
new
product
reaping
otherwise
unattainable
efficiencies
effort
distinguish
broadcast
music
thus
unconvincing
defending
holding
also
suggests
respondents
arguments
application
per
se
rule
better
directed
legislature
ante
curious
advice
sherman
act
mention
per
se
rules
congress
decided
broadcast
music
relevant
cases
since
enactment
sherman
act
duty
courts
interpret
apply
general
mandate
benefit
consumers
broadcast
music
plaintiff
yet
discharged
burden
proving
respondents
entered
plainly
anticompetitive
combination
without
substantial
procompetitive
efficiency
justification
view
district
therefore
correctly
refused
grant
state
motion
summary
judgment
critical
disputed
issue
fact
remains
unresolved
see
fed
rule
civ
proc
believe
action
today
loses
sight
basic
purposes
sherman
act
noted
antitrust
laws
consumer
welfare
prescription
reiter
sonotone
rush
condemn
novel
plan
knows
little
suggests
end
achieved
invalidating
activities
may
potential
harm
little
record
show
effect
plan
suggests
means
providing
medical
services
fact
benefits
rather
injures
persons
need
complex
economy
complex
economic
arrangements
commonplace
unwise
case
novel
important
one
make
final
judgment
absence
complete
record
mandatory
inferences
create
critical
issues
fact
pima
foundation
open
pima
county
area
physician
licensed
arizona
renewable
membership
term
voluntary
resignation
provision
permits
earlier
exit
january
following
announcement
intent
resign
maricopa
foundation
admits
physicians
members
county
medical
society
maricopa
foundation
renewable
term
membership
initial
membership
may
term
less
year
uniform
annual
termination
date
members
maintained
medical
societies
professional
associations
physicians
practicing
particular
county
pima
county
medical
society
pima
foundation
dismissed
case
pursuant
consent
decree
three
private
carriers
underwrite
various
pima
plans
arizona
blue
shield
pacific
mutual
life
insurance
connecticut
general
life
insurance
co
latter
two
companies
also
underwrite
plans
maricopa
foundation
five
private
insurance
companies
apparently
large
employers
state
arizona
motorola
also
act
insurers
respect
employees
insurance
plans
foundations
act
insurance
companies
claims
agents
contract
basis
administer
claims
extent
review
medical
necessity
propriety
treatment
claim
entered
foundations
charge
insurers
fee
various
services
recent
years
fee
set
insurers
premiums
agreement
provides
part
physician
agrees
bound
respect
maximum
fees
fee
determination
oundation
consistent
schedule
adopted
foundation
physician
membership
app
agreement
also
provides
foundation
members
understand
agree
participating
membership
oundation
shall
affect
method
computation
amount
fees
billed
respect
medical
care
patient
ibid
least
seven
insurance
companies
competing
relevant
market
see
supra
stage
case
must
infer
competing
vigorously
successfully
term
consumer
commonly
used
antitrust
cases
literature
used
herein
mean
persons
need
may
need
medical
services
physician
state
introduced
evidence
summary
judgment
motion
supporting
apparent
view
insurers
effectively
perform
function
without
physician
participation
clear
however
price
quality
professional
services
unlike
commercial
products
difficult
compare
cf
bates
state
bar
arizona
opinion
powell
particularly
true
medical
service
presumably
reason
participating
insurers
wish
utilize
foundations
services
see
broadcast
music
columbia
broadcasting
system
stevens
dissenting
part
holds
ascap
blanket
license
species
price
fixing
categorically
forbidden
sherman
act
agree
holding
cf
continental
gte
sylvania
identifying
achievement
efficiencies
redeeming
virtue
decision
sustaining
agreement
per
se
challenge
sullivan
law
antitrust
per
se
characterization
inappropriate
price
agreement
achieves
great
economies
scale
thereby
improves
economic
performance
higher
burden
might
reasonably
placed
plaintiff
agreement
may
involve
efficiencies
case
physicians
effect
vote
foundation
schedules
broadcast
music
copyright
owners
aggregated
copyrights
group
package
sold
rights
package
group
price
distributed
proceeds
among
according
formula
see
columbia
broadcasting
system
american
society
composers
authors
publishers
case
foundations
schedules
attempt
rectify
inflationary
consequence
patients
indifference
size
physicians
bills
insurers
commitment
reimburse
whatever
usual
customary
reasonable
charges
physicians
may
submit
broadcast
music
market
defect
inhered
fact
performed
copyrighted
music
profit
numerous
widespread
performances
fleeting
practical
matter
impossible
many
individual
copyright
owners
negotiate
license
users
detect
unauthorized
uses
case
record
us
indicates
insurers
best
situated
decide
best
motivated
inspire
trust
judgment
believe
foundations
efficient
providers
scheduling
service
broadcast
music
found
blanket
copyright
clearinghouse
system
reduce
costs
absolutely
broadcast
music
little
competition
among
individual
composers
separate
compositions
ante
irrational
ground
distinction
competition
existed
see
also
cooperative
agreement
competition
yet
persists
among
physicians
sensible
reason
invalidate
agreement
refusing
similarly
condemn
broadcast
music
agreements
completely
effective
eliminating
competition
also
offers
distinction
foundations
permit
creation
different
product
ante
foundations
provide
different
product
precisely
extent
broadcast
music
clearinghouses
clearinghouses
provided
copyright
holders
offered
individual
sellers
rights
use
individual
compositions
clearinghouses
able
obtain
rights
efficiently
however
eliminated
need
engage
individual
bargaining
individual
copyright
owner
see
manner
foundations
set
innovative
means
deliver
basic
service
insured
medical
care
wide
range
physicians
one
choice
economical
manner
foundations
schedules
replace
weak
cost
containment
incentives
typical
usual
customary
reasonable
insurance
agreements
stronger
cost
control
mechanism
absolute
ceiling
maximum
fees
charged
conduct
insurers
case
indicates
believe
foundation
plan
presently
exists
efficient
means
developing
administering
schedules
stage
litigation
therefore
must
agree
foundation
plan
permits
economical
delivery
basic
insurance
service
extent
different
product
broadcast
music
medical
services
differ
typical
service
commercial
product
issue
antitrust
case
services
physicians
rendered
basis
rarely
compared
recipient
person
requiring
medical
service
advice
ready
way
comparing
physicians
shopping
quality
medical
service
lesser
price
primarily
reason
foundations
operating
plan
issue
perform
function
neither
physicians
prospective
patients
perform
individually
collective
average
basis
physicians
express
willingness
render
certain
identifiable
services
specified
fees
leaving
patients
free
choose
physician
thus
case
derive
little
guidance
conventional
perfect
market
analysis
antitrust
law
give
greater
weight
uniqueness
medical
services
certainly
invalidate
per
se
basis
plan
may
fact
perform
uniquely
useful
service
affirmance
district
holding
immunized
medical
service
plan
issue
foreclosed
eventual
conclusion
remand
arrangement
deemed
per
se
invalid
district
found
petitioner
failed
establish
per
se
violation
sherman
act
question
remained
whether
plan
comports
rule
reason
see
gypsum