Ninth Circuit Rules That State Certificate of Need Laws May Unconstitutionally Burden Interstate Commerce - Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital V. Washington State Department of Health1

By Oh, Anna | American Journal of Law & Medicine, October 1, 2011 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Ninth Circuit Rules That State Certificate of Need Laws May Unconstitutionally Burden Interstate Commerce - Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital V. Washington State Department of Health1


Oh, Anna, American Journal of Law & Medicine


Ninth Circuit Rules that State Certificate of Need Laws May Unconstitutionally Burden Interstate Commerce - Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital v. Washington State Department ofHealthx - The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that Washington State Department of Health's ("Department") certificate of need ("CON") regulations, which restrict the number of hospitals performing elective percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs),2 may be unconstitutional as an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.3

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital ("Memorial"), the plaintiff, operates a nonprofit hospital in Yakima, Washington.4 Memorial currently performs PCIs, procedures used to treat diseased arteries of the heart, only in emergency situations.5 Additionally, Memorial seeks to perform elective PCIs.6 Memorial, however, must be licensed under Washington's CON regulations before offering elective PCIs to patients.7 CON regulations require that a hospital applying for a PCI license must: (1) perform a minimum of 300 PCIs per year, and (2) demonstrate that the projected demand in the applicant's geographic market exceeds the number of PCIs currently provided by licensed incumbent hospitals by at least 300 PCIs.8 Memorial cannot meet these requirements for a PCI license because Yakima Regional Medical and Cardiac Center, a licensed hospital, already serves the local market.9 According to these requirements, the market will not "need" another hospital to provide elective PCIs until the year 2022.10

Memorial sued the Department in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington." Memorial alleged that the Department's requirements under the CON regulations were anticompetitive and violated section 1 of the Sherman Act because they allowed incumbent license holders to maintain their PCI monopoly.12 Further, Memorial argued that the CON regulations placed an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce by preventing Memorial from participating in the interstate market for PCI patients, which violates the "dormant" Commerce Clause.13

The district court held that the CON regulations did not violate the Sherman Act because these regulations were unilateral restraints on trade rather than hybrid restraints.14 Unilateral restraints are imposed directly by the states and are thus immune to antitrust challenges.15 In contrast, hybrid restraints do not enjoy the same immunity because they delegate the regulatory power to private parties.16 Because restraints on trade imposed directly by states are immune from antitrust challenges, unilateral CON restraints do not violate the Sherman Act.17 Moreover, the district court found that the Department did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, although Memorial had standing to bring a Commerce Clause claim.18 The court noted that Congress expressly authorized CONs under the National Health Planning and Resource Development Act (NHPRDA), which required states receiving federal funding to devise programs that prevented unnecessary healthcare services and facilities from being offered to patients.19 Thus, the court held that this federal statute provided the authorization necessary for CON regulations to survive the dormant Commerce Clause challenge.20

Memorial appealed the district court's decision that the state's CON regulations did not violate the Sherman Act and that NHPRDA authorized these regulations.21 In response, the Department cross-appealed the decision that Memorial had standing to bring a claim under the dormant Commerce Clause.22

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that Washington's CON regulations did not violate the Sherman Act and that Memorial had standing to bring a claim under the dormant Commerce Clause.23 First, with regard to the alleged violation of the Sherman Act, the court found that the regulations did not grant hospitals the power to dictate the restraint on trade.24 Rather, the state had already established the parameters of the restraint on trade at the time it enacted the CON regulations.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Ninth Circuit Rules That State Certificate of Need Laws May Unconstitutionally Burden Interstate Commerce - Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital V. Washington State Department of Health1
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.