OPPONENENTS TO PB HOSPITAL MERGER STILL TRYING

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' recent reversal of a federal judge's ruling that prohibited the merger of Poplar Bluff's two hospitals took a lot of people by surprise.

Particularly surprised were businesses. As a result of the Court of Appeal's decision, three business coalitions on health and two individual businesses have joined the Missouri attorney general and Federal Trade Commission in asking that the appeals court reconsider its decision that paved the way for the merger of Doctors Regional Medical Center and Lucy Lee Healthcare Systems in Poplar Bluff.

Tenet Healthcare System, which owns Lucy Lee, wants to buy Doctors Regional Medical Center. A federal judge ruled in 1998 against the merger. In the wake of the appeals court's decision, the attorney general, Jay Nixon, and the Federal Trade Commission are seeking the rehearing.

Joining them as a friends of the court in seeking the rehearing before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are the St. Louis Business Health Coalition, the Southeast Missouri Business Group on Health, the National Business Coalition on Health and the two individual businesses, Briggs & Stratton Corp. and Rowe Furniture Inc., both of Poplar Bluff.

The businesses' main contention is that the appeals court disregarded testimony of customers concerning the effect a merger would have on them, said Herb Wedemeier, a lawyer for Drury Southwest of Cape Girardeau. Drury Southwest belongs to the Southeast Missouri Business Group on Health. Representatives of Briggs & Stratton and Rowe testified that the businesses would be forced to accept price increases if the hospitals merged rather than send their employees with medical insurance to out-of-town hospitals.

It seems unusual that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would disregard that type of testimony. Instead, it may be that the appeals court did not agree with the argument that the cost of health care would go up if Tenet bought Doctors Regional. To say it would increase would be strictly speculation. If that is the case, those opposed to the merger did not prove to the court that health-care costs would increase.

It also seems unusual that the appeals court would rehear the matter once it has issued its decision, and it would be even more unusual for the court to reverse itself in the matter short of any type of antitrust violation through the merger. An appeal to any court that relies on telling that court it didn't do it's job in the first place sounds risky at best.