Promedica Health System, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
749 F.3d 559, 2014 WL 1584835, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7500 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, a merger is presumed unlawful if it results in a highly concentrated market with a significant increase in the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), and this presumption can be supported by evidence that the merging parties are direct competitors and the merger will enhance market power without offsetting efficiencies.
Facts:
- Lucas County, Ohio, had four hospital providers, with ProMedica being the most dominant (46.8% of the General Acute-Care (GAC) market and 71.2% of obstetrical (OB) services) and St. Luke's Hospital being an independent, not-for-profit hospital with 11.5% of the GAC market.
- ProMedica and St. Luke's were direct competitors, especially in the affluent southwest region of Lucas County, where many privately insured patients resided.
- St. Luke's struggled financially between 2007 and 2009, losing over $25 million, but by August 2010, after implementing a turnaround plan, it had returned to a positive, albeit small, margin.
- St. Luke's CEO, Daniel Wakeman, considered options including remaining independent, pushing Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) for higher reimbursement rates, or merging with one of the other three providers.
- Wakeman concluded that a merger with ProMedica “ha[d] the greatest potential for higher hospital rates” due to increased “negotiating clout,” but also recognized it could “har[m] the community by forcing higher hospital rates on them.”
- St. Luke's Board accepted Wakeman’s recommendation to pursue a merger with ProMedica in November 2009, and the merger agreement was signed on May 25, 2010.
- Despite an ongoing FTC investigation and a Hold Separate Agreement, ProMedica and St. Luke's closed their merger deal on August 31, 2010.
Procedural Posture:
- In July 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opened an investigation into the merger between ProMedica and St. Luke's.
- In August 2010, the FTC and ProMedica entered into a "Hold Separate Agreement" allowing the merger to close but restricting ProMedica's control over St. Luke's pending the investigation.
- In January 2011, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against ProMedica.
- Later that month, the FTC and the state of Ohio filed a separate complaint in federal district court in Toledo, seeking and obtaining a preliminary injunction to extend the Hold Separate Agreement.
- In the administrative proceeding, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held extensive hearings.
- In December 2011, the ALJ issued a decision finding the merger would substantially lessen competition in violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act and ordered ProMedica to divest St. Luke’s.
- ProMedica appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Federal Trade Commission.
- The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision, agreeing that the merger increased ProMedica’s market share above thresholds for a presumption of lessened competition and ordered divestiture.
- ProMedica filed a petition for review of the Commission’s order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Federal Trade Commission correctly determine that ProMedica's acquisition of St. Luke's Hospital would substantially lessen competition in the relevant healthcare markets in Lucas County, Ohio, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, thereby warranting divestiture?
Opinions:
Majority - Kethledge, Circuit Judge
Yes, the Federal Trade Commission correctly determined that ProMedica's acquisition of St. Luke's Hospital would substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The court affirmed the FTC's market definitions, identifying two relevant markets: (1) a cluster market of primary (excluding OB) and secondary inpatient services (the "GAC market"), and (2) a separate market for OB services. These market definitions were supported by substantial evidence, applying the "administrative-convenience" theory due to similar competitive conditions within each cluster and distinct conditions for OB services and tertiary services. The court rejected ProMedica's "package-deal" theory for market definition, finding no evidence that MCOs demanded a premium for a single provider offering all services. The Commission's presumption of anticompetitive effects, based on Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) data, was properly applied. The merger significantly increased HHI well beyond the thresholds for highly concentrated markets (GAC market increased by 1,078 to 4,391; OB market increased by 1,323 to 6,854). The court also found a strong correlation between ProMedica’s market share and its ability to impose unilateral price increases, noting its prices were already among the highest in the state. ProMedica failed to rebut this presumption by not demonstrating any consumer-enhancing efficiencies or providing a valid "weakened competitor" defense, as St. Luke's financial situation was improving before the merger. Furthermore, internal documents from the merging parties and testimony from MCOs corroborated the anticompetitive concerns, indicating the merger would eliminate a significant competitor and leave MCOs with no viable walk-away option against ProMedica. The chosen remedy of divestiture was deemed appropriate and not an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the FTC's authority in challenging hospital mergers and provides guidance on market definition in the healthcare industry, particularly the application of the "administrative-convenience" theory for clustering services. It highlights that an overwhelming increase in market concentration, as measured by HHI, can create a strong presumption of anticompetitive effects, even in unilateral effects cases involving differentiated products. The ruling also underscores the difficulty of asserting a "weakened competitor" defense without substantial evidence that the acquired firm's market share would otherwise decline to a level that would not trigger antitrust concerns. This decision serves as a significant precedent for future hospital merger challenges, emphasizing the importance of competitive conditions and consumer welfare.
