Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 19,800+ case briefs...

Ocean State Physicians Health Plan, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
883 F.2d 1101 (1989)


Facts

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island (Blue Cross) (defendant) had a monopoly over Rhode Island’s health-coverage market. Blue Cross paid doctors set fees to care for its subscribers. Ocean State Physicians Health Plan, Inc. (Ocean State) (plaintiff) was a relatively new health-maintenance organization (HMO) that contracted with many of the same doctors. However, the doctors had agreed to accept fees from Ocean State that were 20 percent lower than those paid by Blue Cross. Ocean State used these savings to offer very competitive prices and extra coverage benefits to subscribers, causing Blue Cross to lose business to Ocean State. Blue Cross responded with three actions. First, Blue Cross set up a competing HMO called HealthMate. Second, Blue Cross changed its pricing structure. Employers that offered only Blue Cross got the lowest prices. Employers that also offered HealthMate and any other HMO (including Ocean State) got mid-level prices for Blue Cross subscriptions. Employers that offered Blue Cross and only HMOs other than HealthMate were charged the highest prices for Blue Cross subscriptions. Blue Cross justified the tiered pricing on the basis of adverse selection, claiming that Blue Cross was left to cover a more expensive pool of a company’s old, sick employees any time HMO options skimmed off that company’s young, healthy employees. Blue Cross’s third action was enacting a prudent-buyer policy. This policy operated like a most-favored-nation clause, forcing doctors to offer Blue Cross the same rate that they offered to anyone else. This meant that doctors who wanted to keep working for Blue Cross, the largest insurer in the state, had to quit working with Ocean State or else cut their Blue Cross fees by 20 percent to match the lower Ocean State rates. Approximately 350 of the 1200 doctors in Ocean State’s network stopped working with Ocean State. Ocean State sued, arguing that Blue Cross’ three actions violated § 2 of the Sherman Act. The district court dismissed the case, and Ocean State appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Campbell, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 509,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 509,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 19,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial