Emphasis on cost containment by third-party payors has intensified economic competition within the health care system, creating powerful market forces which retail pharmacists had not envisioned a few years ago. Hospitals and alternative delivery systems now sell prescription drugs in direct competition with retail pharmacists. These entities are able to purchase their pharmaceuticals from manufacturers at prices far below those of the retailers. Retail pharmacist plaintiffs allege that such activities violate the Robinson-Patman Act which prohibits price discrimination. Retail pharmacists have achieved landmark victories in decisions establishing that nonprofit, state and local governmental hospitals reselling pharmaceuticals in competition with retail pharmacies are not exempt from the Act. This Article demonstrates that despite these victories, plaintiffs will have difficulty proving an actual violation of the Act by manufacturers and hospitals. Plaintiffs must establish competitive injury as well as refute the meeting competition defense. Retail pharmacists might discover that the Robinson-Patman Act is not the ally they had hoped for; instead, they should concentrate on innovative alternatives which will allow them to compete in an evolving health care system.

Nursing home discharges of employees based on patient abuse raise a difficult issue when the motivating factor for the disciplinary action is union activism. A tension is created between the rights of employees to engage in protected concerted activity and the rights of patients to quality care. In 1974, Congress passed the Health Care Institutions Amendments, which granted to non-profit health care workers collective organizing and bargaining rights substantially similar to those which workers in other industries had enjoyed for decades under the National Labor Relations Act. Congress intended to give health care workers only that degree of parity, however, which is compatible with the provision of high quality patient care. The agency charged with enforcing the Act, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), has failed to distinguish employee misconduct in industrial settings from patient abuse in health care institutions when fashioning remedies for discriminatorily discharged union activists. The NLRB typically has ordered the reinstatement, with back pay, of the patient abuser as the patient’s primary care-giver. This Article suggests that a front pay remedy is more appropriate to these cases because it protects the patient’s right to be free from abuse without sacrificing employee unionization rights.

The preferred provider organization (PPO) is a recent innovation in the health care industry, designed to reduce costs through selective contracting and utilization controls. This Note examines malpractice liability theories potentially applicable to PPOs. The Note compares PPOs to other health care institutions, including hospitals and HMOs, and concludes that PPOs are at minimal risk of incurring liability for physician negligence.

“Fetal vulnerability programs,” which are employer attempts to protect employees' unborn fetuses from harm caused by the mothers' exposure to hazardous material in the workplace, have been challenged as a form of employment discrimination. This Note analyzes the recent judicial application of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and the disparate impact theory to fetal vulnerability cases. The Note also examines the business necessity defense's accommodation of legitimate employer interests. The Note concludes that a more potent business necessity defense, a stricter standard for evaluating alternative protective measures, and a judicial interpretation of the PDA which is more consistent with congressional intent are necessary for fair and reasonable resolution of these cases.