Benefis SUES to prevent competition, maintain monopoly status
Benefis has sued the Great Falls Clinic to prevent the Clinic from acquiring the Central Montana Surgical Hospital. Judge Tom McKittrick granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the sale. (Do not make assumptions about the merits of the case from the fact that he granted the TRO; the standard for doing so is low, especially considering they can only remain in effect for a short period of time.)
I have not seen the lawsuit yet, but based upon the Tribune's article Benefis is apparently relying on MCA 50-5-201, which provides that a hospital license is "valid only for the person and premises for which it was issued," and "may not be sold, assigned or transferred." But, 50-5-501(44) provides that a "person" includes a corporation. Thus, if the Central Montana Hospital is a corporation, and the Clinic is merely acquiring its stock, then the license is not being "sold, assigned or transferred," at least not from a technical legal point of view.
More significant to me, though, is the issue of standing. Standing is a legal requirement that the law under which one sues must contemplate that the party bringing the action is one with a sufficient connection to the case to suffer a real harm. In other words, if you get hit by a car, your next door neighbor lacks standing to sue for your injuries.
While I am not an expert in hospital law, it seems apparent to me that the licensing scheme is designed to be enforced by the Department of Public Health and Human Services, not a licensee's competitors. (See, e.g. MCA, Title 50, Chap. 5, relating to the regulation of hospitals. I did not see anything that contemplates private enforcement of these rules. Further, another part of the law requires that proceedings for an injunction, such as a TRO application, must be brought by the county attorney.)
Why, then, did Benefis feel the need to attempt to interpose itself into the middle of a regulatory matter that will no doubt be addressed in detail by DPHHS? Did they do it to harass the Clinic, and raise the costs? Do they think the Department is incapable of understanding the law? Did they do it for press? Did they do it to provide work for hungry, Chicago law firms?
I hope the Tribune asks them.
4 comments:
Why is competition such a bad thing to Benifis? Do they think they will loose patients? How badly can it hurt their bottom line? Will it force them to really TRY to improve service or something?
When I heard this on the radio yesterday, I nearly gagged. Benefis should be ashamed of itself.
I can’t say I’m entirely against Benefis on this one. The Trib article referenced an expired Federal law that prevents doctors from referring patients to Specialty Hospitals that they profit from. With the doctors at the clinic being partners and having corporate ownership over the Surgical Hospital a doctor would have a built in non-medical bias when recommending facilities to patients. I must admit though that this summer a GF Clinic doctor recommended that my son get a brain scan at Benefis instead of the GF Clinic because Benefis has a better MRI. I’m glad my son’s doctor put the patient’s health before fiscal gain but I’m sure some doctors would not. It seems to me that the GF Clinic needs some competition as much as Benefis does.
That last line in your post made me laugh!
Post a Comment