Whenever these companies meet they must be careful not to discuss issues that would violate antitrust laws. They therefore often consult with legal experts to assure themselves that this requirement is met. One troubling conclusion from the Havighurst analysis permits group agreement among competitors to set standards but not to follow them. In health care, the common good or public health can be improved, if effective interventions are implemented universally, even by competitors. As Havighurst points out, however, this is not an acceptable defense under current law.
Pediatric immunization is an example.
The agreement not only to set, but also to follow common standards, may help us better performance on key public health measures and better treatment for common chronic conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Redundant requests to physicians and other providers of care by managed care organizations to implement commonly accepted standards such as appropriate infection control procedures in private physician offices, can and should be simplified by common programs that promote the accepted standard and require compliance with it. I believe there is a difference between social purpose of health care and other forms of commerce that may justify some changes in antitrust laws for health care. We must make sure legal mechanisms are available to competitors to cooperate in such areas where the common good justifies it. There are new opportunities for promoting both new forms of competition and new forms of collaboration in health care.