The Case of South Georgia Health Partners and the Federal Trade Commission's Decision

Ethics in Healthcare: Case of SGHP in Georgia
Student Name
Department, University
Course Number: Course Name
Professor
Date
Ethics in Healthcare: Case of SGHP in Georgia
Case Summary
The case in question pertains to the responsibility of payments to third-party payers such as insurance companies and individual employers (the United States of America before Federal Trade, n.d). In this case, the role of South Georgia Partners (SGHP) was to develop a practical payment framework that stipulated the terms of engagement and pricing model. However, following internal disagreements, the involved medical practitioner, physicians, and member hospitals withdrew from the agreement citing that SGP should be responsible for all transactions. This meant that third parties were eliminated from the process. The most pressing issue was that SGHP was not in control of operations. It was being used by practitioners and competing hospitals to benefit themselves by charging high prices. This meant that the third-party payers had to incur the high fees charged. The problem, in this case, was that the practice encouraged non-competitive behavior, which resulted in a rapid increase in the cost of healthcare. Price competition was cited as the major problem that increased medical costs and impeded innovation. Being a for-profit organization, SGHP advocated for higher prices for medical services. The practice was flagged as unethical since it made healthcare expensive and undermined the quality of care.    
Explanation of FTC Decision
Regarding the matter, the Federal Trade Commission sanctioned SGHP for gross violations of federal law. The law in question pertains to unfair and deceptive practices intended for gains that violate the rules of fair competition. In this case, FTC based its argument on price-fixing, which was lawfully linked to antitrust laws (South Georgia Health Partners - Federal Trade Commission, n.d). The decision by the commission was to cease all future contracts, especially with third parties such as insurance companies and private payers, and other coalition members. SP, which regarded itself as a facilitating organization for networking between practitioners and healthcare institutions, was found guilty of disrupting the care system by establishing a system solely targeted at generating profits for its members. The decision by FTC to terminate the operations of SGHP was supported by the conclusion that the institution’s acclaimed benefit of enabling access to comprehensive and high-quality medical care that was cost-effective was misleading. In the claim, which concluded to terminate the operation, SGHP was found at fault for price-fixing. It independently determined the prices through a faulty system. As the ...