Federation of Physicians and Dentists Consents to Judgment in Delaware Sherman Act Case
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.23.01
On October 22, 2001, the Department of Justice submitted a proposed final judgment settling its antitrust suit against the Federation of Physicians and Dentists. The Government had alleged that the Federation violated the Sherman Act by coordinating and negotiating third party payer contract pricing on behalf of member orthopedic surgeons in Delaware. CA 98-475 D.Del.
The Federation and its member physicians allegedly coordinated a response to attempts by Delaware insurance payers to bring physician fees in line with those paid in neighboring regions. According tot he Government, this coordination included agreements by the physicians to deal with payers exclusively through the Federation and concerted efforts to resist negotiation with payers, eventually leading to the cancellation of service contracts by many member physicians.
The Final Judgment requires the Federation to limit its dealings with payers nationally on behalf of member physicians to true "messenger model" activity: communicating factual information about proposed payer contracts to individual physicians. The Federation and its member physicians may not facilitate agreements designed to set uniform contract provisions or fees; nor may they facilitate the sharing of competitively sensitive information between competing physicians. For the first five years following the Judgment, the Federation must notify physicians and insurance payers that 1) they are permitted to bargain without using the Federation as a messenger and 2) it is prohibited from negotiating contracts on behalf of physicians. The Judgment contains provisions protecting both the Federation's activities organizing employee physicians and the bargaining practices of physicians belonging to bona fide risk sharing arrangements.
Crowell & Moring attorneys have worked on behalf of managed care company clients in a number of states that have encountered questionable activities by the Federation.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
