Economics at the FTC: Retrospective Merger Analysis with a Focus on Hospitals
- 284 Downloads
Economists at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) support the agency’s competition and consumer protection missions. In this year’s essay we discuss efforts at the FTC and elsewhere to examine empirically the competitive effects of mergers. This work has ranged from subjective interview-based reports on post-merger behavior to more objective analyses of post-merger performance based on rigorous empirical analysis of prices. In this essay we discuss the merger retrospective literature generally, and focus on the FTC staff’s recent empirical analyses of consummated hospital mergers.
KeywordsAntitrust Consumer protection FTC Mergers Merger retrospectives
- Ashenfelter, O. C., & Hosken, D. S. (2010). The effect of mergers on consumer prices: Evidence from five mergers on the enforcement margin. Journal of Law & Economics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- Ashenfelter O., Hosken D. S., Weinberg M. (2009) Generating evidence to guide merger enforcement. Competition Policy International 5(1): 57–75Google Scholar
- Baker J. B. (2009) Efficiencies and high concentration: Heinz proposes to acquire Beech-Nut. In: Kwoka J. E., White L. J. (eds) The antitrust revolution: Economics, competition, and policy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Balan, D. J., & Brand, K. J. (2009). Simulating hospital merger simulations. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/david_balan/7.
- Biscourp, P., Boutin, X., & Vergé, T. (2008). The effects of retail regulations on prices: Evidence from the Loi Galland. Institut National De La Statistique Et Des Études ÉconomiquesGoogle Scholar
- Breen D. A. (2004) The Union Pacific/Southern Pacific rail merger: A retrospective on merger benefits. The Review of Network Economics 3(3): 283–322Google Scholar
- Carlton D. W. (2009) Why we need to measure the effect of merger policy and how to do it. Competition Policy International 5(1): 76–90Google Scholar
- Chen, V. (2009). The evolution of the baby food industry 2000–2008. Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, Working Paper # 297.Google Scholar
- Coate, M. B., & Heimert, A. J. (2009). Merger efficiencies at the Federal Trade Commission 1997–2007. Retrieved from Federal Trade Commission website http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/02/0902mergerefficiencies.pdf.
- European Commission., Buccirossi, P., Ciari, L., Duso, T., Fridolfsson, S., Spagnolo, G., & Vitale, C. (2006). Ex-post review of merger control decisions. Laboritorio di economica, antitrust, regolamentazione (Lear) for the European Commission’s DG Competition.Google Scholar
- Elzinga K. G., Hogarty T. F. (1974) The problem of geographic market delineation in antimerger suits. Antitrust Bulletin 18: 45–81Google Scholar
- Farrell, J., & Shapiro, C. (2008). Antitrust evaluation of horizontal mergers: An economic alternative to market definition. Working Paper presented at Federal Trade Commission/Northwestern University microeconomics conference, November 2008.Google Scholar
- General Accounting Office. (2004). The effects of mergers and market concentration in the US petroleum industry. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Governmental Affairs, US Senate, United States General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
- Haas-Wilson, D., & Garmon, C. (2009). Two hospital mergers on Chicago’s North Shore: A retrospective study. Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, Working Paper # 294.Google Scholar
- Hunter G., Leonard G. K., Olley G. S. (2008) Merger retrospective studies: A review. Antitrust 23(1): 34–41Google Scholar
- Muris, T. J. (2002). Everything old is new again: Health care and competition in the 21st century. Prepared remarks at the 7th Annual competition in health care forum, Chicago, November 2.Google Scholar
- Pautler P. A. (2003) Evidence on mergers and acquisitions. Antitrust Bulletin 48: 119–221Google Scholar
- Richman B. D. (2007) Antitrust and nonprofit hospital mergers: A return to basics. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 156: 121–150Google Scholar
- Schumann, L., Rogers, R. P., & Reitzes, J. D. (1992). Case studies of the price effects of horizontal mergers. Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
- Steiger, J. (1990). Report from official Washington. Prepared remarks before the American bar association. March, pp. 10–16.Google Scholar
- Taylor, C. T., Kreisle, N., & Zimmerman, P. R. (2007). Vertical relationships and competition in retail gasoline markets: Comment. FTC Bureau of Economics, Working Paper # 291 (Accepted by AER April 2009, forthcoming 2009 or 2010).Google Scholar
- Tenn, S. (2008). The price effects of hospital mergers: A case study of the Sutter-Summit transaction. Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, Working Paper # 293.Google Scholar
- Thompson, A. (2009). The effect of hospital mergers on inpatient prices: A case study of the New Hanover-Cape Fear transaction. Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics, Working Paper # 295.Google Scholar
- UK Office of Fair Trading. (2008). An evaluation of the impact upon productivity of ending resale price maintenance on books. Report prepared for the OFT by the Centre for Competition Policy at University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
- UK Office of Fair Trading., & Competition Commission. (2005). Ex-post evaluation of mergers. March, 2005. Morrison & Elliot of PricewaterhouseCoopers. Retrieved from http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4E8F41F9-5D96-4CD4-8965-8DDA26A64DA8/0/oft767.pdf.
- UK Office of Fair Trading, Competition Commission, Dept. For Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), Deloitte LLP, and Steve Davies (University of East Anglia). (2009, March 18), Review of merger decisions under the Enterprise Act 2002.Google Scholar
- Weinberg, M., & Hosken, D. (2008). Using mergers to test a model of oligopoly. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/be/workshops/microeconomics/docs/weinberg.pdf.
- Werden G. J., Froeb L. M. (1994) The effects of mergers in differentiated products industries: Logit demand and merger policy. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 10: 407–426Google Scholar