43-1B-8 (2019)
Exception for health care providers with interest in health service regulated by federal law
Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, this chapter shall not apply to any health care provider or to any designated health service if the financial interest of such health care provider in such designated health service is restricted or regulated pursuant to any federal law which is applicable to such health care provider or designated health service and which covers private paying patients as well as medicare or Medicaid patients.
History
Code 1981, § 43-1B-8, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 521, § 1.
T.43, C.1C GEORGIA PROFESSIONAL REGULATION REFORM
CHAPTER 1C GEORGIA PROFESSIONAL REGULATION REFORM Sec.
Sec.
Short title. Definitions.
Annotations
Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2016, p. 561, § 1/HB 952, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “The General Assembly finds, determines, and declares that: “(1) In N.C. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. FTC, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015), the Supreme Court of the United States established a new standard for determining whether state professional licensing boards and board members are entitled to immunity for federal antitrust violations. Pursuant to N.C. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, state professional licensing boards and board members are entitled to antitrust immunity only if: “(A) Their anticompetitive conduct is consistent with ‘clearly articulated’ state policy; and “(B) The state provides ‘active supervision’ of their conduct.
Executive oversight of professional licensing boards.
“(2) It is the policy of the State of Georgia to increase economic opportunities for all of its citizens by promoting competition and thereby encouraging innovation and job growth. It is therefore also the policy of the State of Georgia to displace competition only when necessary to protect consumers from present, significant, and substantiated harms that threaten public health and safety. “(3) By establishing the policies and procedures of this chapter, the General Assembly intends to ensure that the state’s professional licensing boards and board members are entitled to antitrust immunity and that state laws relating to professions and businesses are interpreted and enforced in a manner consistent with clearly articulated state policy.”