Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.Start Printed Page 13388
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint that accompanies the consent agreement and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2000.
Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
C. Steven Baker or Nicholas Franczyk, Federal Trade Commission, Midwest Region, 55 E. Monroe St., Suite 1860, Chicago, IL 60603-5701. (312) 960-5633.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 7, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at “http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/formal.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.
Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 31/2 inch diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement from the Wisconsin Chiropractic Association (“WCA”) and its executive director, Russell A. Leonard, to a proposed consent order. The agreement settles charges by the Federal Trade Commission that the WCA and Mr. Leonard have violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by conspiring with some of the WCA's members and others to fix prices for chiropractic services and to boycott third-party payers to obtain higher reimbursement rates for services. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty days for reception of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make the agreement and proposed order final.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. The analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms. Further, the proposed consent order has been entered into for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the WCA or Mr. Leonard that the law has been violated as alleged in the complaint.
The WCA is a professional trade association of chiropractors with its principal place of business in Madison, Wisconsin. The WCA has approximately 900 chiropractor members. A substantial majority of the chiropractors licensed to practice in the state of Wisconsin are members of the WCA. The WCA exists and operates in substantial part for the pecuniary benefit of its members. Mr. Leonard is, and during the time period addressed by the allegations of the complaint was, the executive director of the WCA.
Professional services performed by chiropractors include, among other things, spinal and extra spinal manipulations. Prior to January 1, 1997, chiropractors generally billed for these services using a single billing code regardless of the number of regions adjusted. Osteopathic physicians performing manipulation treatments, by contrast, had been using multiple codes to bill based on the number of regions of the body adjusted. Beginning in January 1997, the federal government and private insurance companies began accepting four new codes for chiropractic manipulations. The new chiropractic manipulative treatment (“CMT”) codes reflected more detailed or precise descriptions of the manipulation services and allowed chiropractors, like osteopathic physicians, to bill based on the number of regions adjusted.
Beginning in late 1996, shortly after the new CMT codes were announced, the WCA, acting through its executive director Mr. Leonard, orchestrated an agreement among its members to raise fees for chiropractic manipulation services. In late 1996 and continuing into early 1997, the WCA conducted training seminars on the new codes for members in localities throughout the state. The WCA urged chiropractors not to make any decisions on their fees under the new codes before attending one of these meetings. During the meetings, Mr. Leonard told the chiropractors that the new CMT codes provided them with a unique opportunity to increase their fees. Mr. Leonard advised members that it was important that the new codes for chiropractic manipulation were priced properly, and that the WCA's view was that proper pricing was at the same level that osteopathic physicians billed for spinal manipulation services. He provided detailed data on current osteopathic pricing, and encouraged chiropractors to raise their prices to the osteopathic levels.
At the meetings Mr. Leonard assured members that if they all raised their rates, third-party payers would not reject or reduce these higher charges for the new codes. Under the “UCR” (“usual, customary, and reasonable rate”) system of reimbursement that was in general use in Wisconsin's health care industry, price increases by a significant number of chiropractors would raise the UCR level and thereby result in higher reimbursement for chiropractic services. On the other hand, if other members did not raise their prices, UCR levels would not rise, the chiropractor would not receive higher reimbursement, and he or she would be identified to patients as an “outlier” whose fees were far higher than other chiropractors. Each chiropractor's action in conformity with the WCA's pronouncement would be aided by knowledge that other members were taking similar action. Many members left the WCA local meetings with the understanding that they and others at the meeting would raise their prices in accordance with the WCA's request. After the new codes took effect, Start Printed Page 13389Mr. Leonard surveyed member pricing in certain localities, and reported back to members that chiropractors in these areas had succeeded in raising reimbursement levels.
As a result of these actions by the WCA and Mr. Leonard, many chiropractors raised their fees to the osteopathic levels. Other chiropractors increased their fees substantially more than they had in previous years. Overall, the effect of these actions was to raise the prices that consumers pay for chiropractic services.
In furtherance of the WCA's efforts to raise chiropractic fees, the WCA and Mr. Leonard regularly provided fee surveys to the WCA's members. At times, these fee surveys reflected insufficiently aggregated data, thus effectively identifying current prices by individual chiropractic offices. Fee survey data were also furnished in connection with boycotts of managed care plans.
In March 1997, the WCA and Mr. Leonard organized a boycott by WCA members of MultiPlan, a preferred provider network. At a board meeting, the WCA directors on Mr. Leonard's recommendation agreed to reject, and to encourage their fellow chiropractors to reject, MultiPlan's proposed contract amendments and new fee schedule. Mr. Leonard recommended that chiropractors demand a fee schedule reflecting 85% of market price, and provided survey data that showed current average charges throughout the state. At training seminars held in early April 1997, Mr. Leonard criticized MultiPlan's proposed amendments and fee schedule, encouraged chiropractors to discuss the contract with others in their area, and reminded them that if enough chiropractors rejected the contract, MultiPlan would be forced to renegotiate the terms. Soon thereafter many of the chiropractic members of the WCA submitted letters of termination to MultiPlan.
Mr. Leonard routinely reviewed managed care contract offers to the WCA's members and circulated to the WCA's membership memoranda containing adverse comments about these plans' fee schedules for the new CMT codes. In his comments, Mr. Leonard frequently encouraged chiropractors to negotiate higher fees with the plans, and advised them to exchange all information they received with other chiropractors in their area. In so doing, Mr. Leonard reminded the WCA's members that they would be more successful in their fee negotiations with third-party payers if the members continued to negotiate on a united front. In addition, Mr. Leonard, again acting in his capacity as executive director of the WCA, told third-party payers that they should be paying chiropractors the same amount that osteopaths are paid for manipulation services, encouraged third-party payers to agree to pay specific sums certain or to calculate fees in a manner proposed by the WCA, and called third-party payers to follow up on complaints of low reimbursement that he encouraged and received from individual WCA members.
The WCA's member have not integrated their practices in any economically significant way, nor have they created any efficiencies that might justify this conduct. The purpose of this conduct was to secure higher fees and reimbursement. The WCA's actions harmed consumers by increasing the prices for chiropractic services and depriving consumers of the benefits of competition among chiropractors.
The Proposed Consent Order
The proposed consent order is designed to prevent the illegal concerted action alleged in the complaint. Paragraphs II and III of the proposed order contain the key provisions. These two paragraphs are almost identical in their coverage, except that Paragraph II applies to the WCA and Paragraph III applies to Mr. Leonard. Paragraphs II.A and III.A prohibit the WCA and Mr. Leonard from fixing prices for any chiropractic goods or services (or, in the case of Mr. Leonard, any health care goods or services). The broader category including “any health care goods or services” is needed should Mr. Leonard obtain employment with another health care entity outside the chiropractic field.
Paragraphs II.B and III.B prohibit the WCA and Mr. Leonard from creating, suggesting, or endorsing any proposed fees or conversion factors for any health care goods or services. Here, the WCA is also subject to the broader category of “any health care goods or services” since the allegations in the complaint include the WCA's endorsement of osteopathic fee schedules.
Paragraphs II.C and III.C prohibit the WCA and Mr. Leonard from engaging in negotiations on behalf of any chiropractor or group of chiropractors (or, in the case of Mr. Leonard, any provider or group of providers). In addition, this paragraph prohibits them from orchestrating concerted refusals to deal.
Paragraphs II.D and III.D prohibit the WCA and Mr. Leonard from urging or recommending that any chiropractor (or, in the case of Leonard, any provider) accept or not accept any term or condition of any participation agreement. Paragraphs II.E and III.E prohibit the WCA and Mr. Leonard from soliciting or communicating any chiropractor's (or, in the case of Leonard, any provider's) views, decisions or intentions concerning any participation agreement.
Pursuant to Paragraphs II.F and III.F, the WCA and Mr. Leonard are prohibited from organizing or participating in any meeting or discussion where they expect chiropractors (providers) will discuss intentions concerning participation in any health plans. In addition, these paragraphs prohibit the WCA and Mr. Leonard from continuing any meeting where any person makes such a communication unless the person is ejected from the meeting. Finally, this paragraph requires that the WCA and Mr. Leonard terminate any meeting where two or more persons make such communications.
Paragraphs II.G and III.G ban the WCA and Mr. Leonard from initiating, originating, developing, publishing, or circulating any fee survey for any health care goods or services for a period of two years after the date that the order becomes final, or until December 31, 2001, whichever is earlier. The two-year ban on fee surveys is necessitated by the gross misuse of fee surveys alleged in the complaint. In addition, for five years thereafter, Paragraphs II.H and III.H prohibit the WCA and Mr. Leonard from conducting or distributing any fee survey unless: (1) The data collection and analysis are managed by a third party; (2) the raw fee survey data is retained by the third party and not made available to the respondents; (3) any information that is shared among or is available to providers is more than three months old; and (4) there are at least five providers reporting data upon which each disseminated statistic is based, no individual provider's data represents more than 25 percent on a weighted basis of that statistic, and any information disseminated is sufficiently aggregated that it would not allow respondents or any other recipients to identify the prices charged or compensation paid by any particular provider. These requirements are identical to the requirements found in the safe harbor provisions of the Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care, Statement 5 on Providers' Collective Provision of Fee-Related Information to Purchasers of Health Care Services, issued jointly by the FTC and the Department of Justice on August 18, 1996 (4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 13,153 at 20,809).
Paragraphs II.I and III.I prohibit the WCA and Mr. Leonard from encouraging, advising or pressuring any Start Printed Page 13390person to engage in any action that would be prohibited if the person were subject to the order.
Paragraphs II and III contain provisos allowing the WCA and Mr. Leonard to exercise their First Amendment petitioning rights and to solicit competition-restricting government action where protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. In addition, Paragraph III contains a proviso allowing Mr. Leonard to engage in certain acts otherwise prohibited by the order providing he is acting as an agent, employee, or representative exclusively for a single provider or payer.
Paragraph IV. requires that the WCA maintain copies of: (1) All documents distributed at meetings and seminars; (2) all fee surveys and a record of their distribution; and (3) all documents relating to any subject that is covered by any provision in the order. Paragraph V. requires that the WCA provide copies of the complaint and order: (1) To all current and future officers, directors, and members; (2) to all current and future agents, representatives, and employees whose activities are affected by the order, or who have responsibilities with respect to the subject matter of the order; and (3) to the third-party payers set forth in Appendix B to the order.
Paragraph VI. requires that the WCA notify the Commission of any change in its corporate structure that may affect compliance obligations. Similarly, Paragraph VII. requires that Mr. Leonard notify the Commission of any change in his employment and would require him to provide copies of the complaint and consent order to any new employer for which his new duties and responsibilities are subject to any provisions in the order.
Paragraphs VIII. and IX. consist of standard Commission reporting and compliance procedures. Finally, Paragraph X. contains a standard twenty-year “sunset” provision under which the terms of the order terminate twenty years after the date of issuance.Start Signature
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
[FR Doc. 00-6045 Filed 3-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M