Challenging the Medical Residency Matching System through Antitrust Litigation.
نویسنده
چکیده
It is no secret that medical residencies are tremendously challenging positions. Being a resident physician often means long, grueling hours of patient care, a relatively small salary for the hours worked, and a steep learning curve of training and education under the scrutinizing eyes of seasoned physicians and fellow residents. The process for securing a residency is no leisurely stroll, either. Participation in the National Resident Match Program (NRMP), also known as “the match,” is a competitive endeavor in which medical students vie for a coveted residency placement at one of several institutions of their choice; their ranked selections are factored against the choices of those institutions by an automated algorithm that makes the final determination. Although most medical school graduates accept that participating in the match and a residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) is the only way to become a licensed physician, a small group of physicians sought to challenge this system through legal action starting in 2002 with Jung v. Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)—a case that ultimately led to the legal solidification of this system for the foreseeable future [1].
منابع مشابه
Book Note the Antitrust Counterattack in Patent Infringement Litigation
Patent infringement suit claims of inequitable conduct before the Patent Office and claims of patent misuse are staple affirmative defenses in patent practice. Defendants' frequent invocation of the inequitable conduct and patent misuse doctrines causes patentee-plaintiffs to consider the possibility that a court will find the patent unenforceable in accord with those doctrines. The authors of ...
متن کاملThe Residency Match: Competitive Restraints in an Imperfect World
In 2002 physicians filed a lawsuit alleging that “the match,” the more than fifty-year-old system by which medical students and other applicants are assigned to medical residency programs, violates section 1 of the Sherman Act. Last year, without hearings on the issue, Congress found that the match was “highly efficient” and “pro-competitive” and granted a retroactive antitrust exemption for it...
متن کاملAccentuate the Positive : Defending Antitrust Litigation By Demonstrating the Procompetitive Character of the Challenged Conduct
BY DAVID L. MEYER AND ROBERT M. NICHOLS F or many defendants in antitrust litigation, the procompetitive nature of their alleged conduct is a topic near the bottom of the list of subjects they want to address. They would prefer to first exhaust all of the available avenues for avoiding full-blown merits litigation—and all of the costs and burdens that discovery and trial can bring. There is the...
متن کاملDe Facto Detrebling: the Rush to Settlement in Antitrust Class Action Litigation
Antitrust law provides that successful private plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages. Despite this, in antitrust class action litigation, courts have subtly dismantled the treble damage regime by manipulating the standard for reviewing proposed settlements. Federal law requires judicial approval of class action settlements in order to ensure that the class members’ interests are adequately ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- AMA journal of ethics
دوره 17 2 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2015