URMC Compliance Program Policy Manual:
Market Competition

The Medical Center is committed to complying with all state and federal antitrust laws. The purpose of the antitrust laws is to preserve the competitive free enterprise system. The antitrust laws in the United States are founded on the belief that the public interest is best served by vigorous competition, free from collusive agreements among competitors on price or service terms. The antitrust laws help preserve the country's economic, political, and social institutions; they apply fully to health care services provided by hospitals and physicians, and URMC is firmly committed to the philosophy underlying those laws.

While the antitrust laws clearly prohibit most agreements to fix prices, divide markets, and boycott competitors—which are addressed below—they also proscribe conduct that is found to restrain competition unreasonably. This can include, depending on the facts and circumstances involved, certain attempts to tie or bundle services together, certain exclusionary activities, and certain agreements that have the effect of harming a competitor or unlawfully raising prices.

Discussion with Competitors

URMC policy requires that the rates its affiliates charge for care and related items and services, and the terms of its third-party payer contracts, must be determined solely by the individual entities. In independently determining prices and terms, a facility or provider may take into account all relevant factors, including costs, market conditions, widely used reimbursement schedules, and prevailing competitive prices, to the extent these can be determined in the marketplace. There can be, however, no oral or written understanding with any competitor concerning prices, pricing policies, pricing formulas, bids, or bid formulas, or concerning discounts, credit arrangements, or related terms of sale or service. To avoid the possibility of misunderstanding or misinterpretation, URMC policy prohibits any consultation or discussion with competitors relating to prices or terms which the particular entity, URMC affiliate or any competitor charges or intends to charge. Joint ventures and affiliations that may require pricing discussions must be individually reviewed by legal counsel for antitrust compliance. Discussions with competitors concerning rationalization of markets, down-sizing, or elimination of duplication ordinarily implicate market division and must be avoided.

Facilities within the System are often asked to share information concerning employee compensation. URMC policy prohibits the sharing with competing providers of current information or future plans regarding individual salaries or salary levels. System entities may participate in and receive the results of general surveys, but these must conform to the guidelines for participation in surveys provided under Trade Associations below. Similarly, URMC policy prohibits consultation or discussion with competitors with respect to its services, selection of markets, territories, bids, or customers. Any agreement or understanding with a competitor to divide markets is prohibited. This includes an agreement allocating shares of a market among competitors, dividing territories, or dividing product lines or customers.

Trade Associations

The URMC entities and individual professional staff are involved in a number of trade and professional associations. These organizations promote quality patient care by allowing professionals to learn new skills, develop policies and, where appropriate, speak with one voice on public issues. However, it is not always appropriate to share business information with trade associations and their members. Sharing information is appropriate if it is used to better inform consumers or to promote efficiency and competition.

The system entities may participate in surveys of price, cost, and wage information if the survey is conducted by a third party and involves at least five comparably sized facilities. Any price, cost, or wage information released must be at least three months old. If an employee is asked to provide a trade association with information about charges, costs, salaries, or other business matters, he or she should consult with his or her supervisor or department chair, who may review the issue with counsel or the Compliance Officer. Joint purchasing through a trade association is probably acceptable, but any joint purchasing plan should be reviewed in advance by legal counsel.


URMC policy prohibits any agreement with competitors to boycott or refuse to deal with a particular person or persons, such as a vendor, payer, or other health care provider. These agreements need not be written to be illegal; any understanding reached with a competitor (directly or indirectly) on such matters is prohibited. All negotiations must be conducted in good faith. Exclusive arrangements with payers, vendors, and providers must be approved by legal counsel based on an analysis of the relevant market.

Physician Services

Credentialing and peer review activities also may carry antitrust implications. Because of the special training and experience of physicians, their skills may best be evaluated by other physicians. It is appropriate for physicians to review the work of their peers. Because the physicians reviewing a particular physician may, by virtue of their medical specialties, be the physician's competitors, special care must be taken to ensure that free and open competition is maintained. As a result, credentialing, peer review and physician discipline within URMC are conducted only through properly constituted committees. Physicians participating in these activities are expected to use objective medical judgment.

If any URMC personnel is involved in negotiating a contract of employment or a personal services contract with a physician or other health care provider, it is important to review with care any non-competition provisions incorporated in the agreement. The appropriate geographic scope and duration of a non-competition agreement may vary from case to case. Questions about the appropriateness of a non-competition provision should be directed to legal counsel.


Penalties for antitrust violations are substantial. Individuals and corporations can be fined $350,000 and $10,000,000 respectively, for each antitrust violation, and individuals can be sentenced for up to three years in prison for each offense. In addition, actions giving rise to antitrust violations may violate other federal criminal statues, such as mail fraud or wire fraud, under which substantial fines and even longer prison sentences can be imposed.

Antitrust violations also create civil liability. Private individuals or companies may bring actions to enjoin antitrust violations and to recover damages for injuries caused by violations. If successful, private claimants are entitled to receive three times the amount of damages suffered, plus attorneys' fees. Moreover, if the antitrust violation was a conspiracy, each member of that conspiracy may be liable for the entire damage caused by the conspiracy.