- 46 -
conviction that doctors are not in trade (i.e., are not
merchants). Abbott Labs., however, is an antitrust case, in
which the Supreme Court addressed purchases by nonprofit
hospitals of pharmaceutical products at favored prices from the
manufacturers of those products. The issue was the proper
construction of the phrase “purchases of their supplies for their
own use,” as it appears in 52 Stat. 446, 15 U.S.C. sec. 13c
(1994) (referred to by the Supreme Court as the “Nonprofit
Institutions Act”). The precise question was whether the
nonprofit hospitals’ purchases in question were exempt from the
proscription of the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act, ch.
592, 49 Stat. 1526 (1936), 15 U.S.C. secs. 13, 13a, 13b, and 21a
(1994) because they were for the hospitals’ own use, within the
meaning of the Nonprofit Institutions Act. Abbott Labs. v.
Portland Retail Druggists Association, Inc., supra at 4. The
majority states: “The exemption generally applies where the
nonprofit institution is purchasing the drugs for its ‘own use’
as opposed to for sale to patients.” Majority op. p. 16
(emphasis added). Apparently, since, in Abbott Labs., the
Supreme Court found that at least some of the drugs in question
were purchased by the hospitals for their own use (within the
meaning of 15 U.S.C. sec. 13c), the majority concludes that those
drugs were not purchased for resale (which, I assume, leads to
the conclusion that doctors, like the hospitals, are not
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011