U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

15 U.S.C. § 37b

Confirmation of antitrust status of graduate medical resident matching programs

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Findings and purposes(1) FindingsCongress makes the following findings:(A) For over 50 years, most United States medical school seniors and the large majority of graduate medical education programs (popularly known as “residency programs”) have chosen to use a matching program to match medical students with residency programs to which they have applied. These matching programs have been an integral part of an educational system that has produced the finest physicians and medical researchers in the world.(B) Before such matching programs were instituted, medical students often felt pressure, at an unreasonably early stage of their medical education, to seek admission to, and accept offers from, residency programs. As a result, medical students often made binding commitments before they were in a position to make an informed decision about a medical specialty or a residency program and before residency programs could make an informed assessment of students’ qualifications. This situation was inefficient, chaotic, and unfair and it often led to placements that did not serve the interests of either medical students or residency programs.(C) The original matching program, now operated by the independent non-profit National Resident Matching Program and popularly known as “the Match”, was developed and implemented more than 50 years ago in response to widespread student complaints about the prior process. This Program includes on its board of directors individuals nominated by medical student organizations as well as by major medical education and hospital associations.(D) The Match uses a computerized mathematical algorithm, as students had recommended, to analyze the preferences of students and residency programs and match students with their highest preferences from among the available positions in residency programs that listed them. Students thus obtain a residency position in the most highly ranked program on their list that has ranked them sufficiently high among its preferences. Each year, about 85 percent of participating United States medical students secure a place in one of their top 3 residency program choices.(E) Antitrust lawsuits challenging the matching process, regardless of their merit or lack thereof, have the potential to undermine this highly efficient, pro-competitive, and long-standing process. The costs of defending such litigation would divert the scarce resources of our country’s teaching hospitals and medical schools from their crucial missions of patient care, physician training, and medical research. In addition, such costs may lead to abandonment of the matching process, which has effectively served the interests of medical students, teaching hospitals, and patients for over half a century.(2) PurposesIt is the purpose of this section to—(A) confirm that the antitrust laws do not prohibit sponsoring, conducting, or participating in a graduate medical education residency matching program, or agreeing to do so; and(B) ensure that those who sponsor, conduct or participate in such matching programs are not subjected to the burden and expense of defending against litigation that challenges such matching programs under the antitrust laws.(b) Application of antitrust laws to graduate medical education residency matching programs(1) DefinitionsIn this subsection:(A) Antitrust lawsThe term “antitrust laws”—(i) has the meaning given such term in subsection (a) of section 12 of this title, except that such term includes section 45 of this title to the extent such section 45 applies to unfair methods of competition; and(ii) includes any State law similar to the laws referred to in clause (i).(B) Graduate medical education programThe term “graduate medical education program” means—(i) a residency program for the medical education and training of individuals following graduation from medical school;(ii) a program, known as a specialty or subspecialty fellowship program, that provides more advanced training; and(iii) an institution or organization that operates, sponsors or participates in such a program.(C) Graduate medical education residency matching program

The term “graduate medical education residency matching program” means a program (such as those conducted by the National Resident Matching Program) that, in connection with the admission of students to graduate medical education programs, uses an algorithm and matching rules to match students in accordance with the preferences of students and the preferences of graduate medical education programs.

(D) Student

The term “student” means any individual who seeks to be admitted to a graduate medical education program.

(2) Confirmation of antitrust status

It shall not be unlawful under the antitrust laws to sponsor, conduct, or participate in a graduate medical education residency matching program, or to agree to sponsor, conduct, or participate in such a program. Evidence of any of the conduct described in the preceding sentence shall not be admissible in Federal court to support any claim or action alleging a violation of the antitrust laws.

(3) Applicability

Nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt from the antitrust laws any agreement on the part of 2 or more graduate medical education programs to fix the amount of the stipend or other benefits received by students participating in such programs.

(c) Effective date

This section shall take effect on April 10, 2004, shall apply to conduct whether it occurs prior to, on, or after April 10, 2004, and shall apply to all judicial and administrative actions or other proceedings pending on April 10, 2004.

(Pub. L. 108–218, title II, § 207, Apr. 10, 2004, 118 Stat. 611.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2021 · leading case: Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 339 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 339 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2004). · cites it 13× “596 (2004), which includes a provision entitled “Confirmation of Antitrust Status of Graduate Medical Resident Matching Programs,” an amendment to the antitrust laws that has been codified as 15 U.S.C. § 37b. Certain defendants now move under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of…”
Jane Doe v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545 (3rd Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 37b(a)(l)(A). But as this case shows, these programs aren’t exempt from charges of sex discrimination.”
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 184 F. App'x 9 (D.C. Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “Section 207 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 37b, not only exempts “graduate medical education residency matching program[s]” from antitrust laws, but it also bars evidence of any participation in such programs in support of a claim in federal court that antitrust laws have been…”
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 226 F.R.D. 7 (D.D.C. 2005). · cites it 2× “596 (2004), which includes a provision entitled “Confirmation of Antitrust Status of Graduate Medical Resident Matching Programs,” an amendment to the antitrust laws that has been codified as 15 U.S.C. § 37b (“Match legislation”). See Jung v.”
Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer, 447 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “2004) (dismissing antitrust suit challenging medical residency matching system, based on recently passed 15 U.S.C. § 37b); Friedman v. Salomon/Smith Barney, Inc.”
In Re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig. - Mdl 1869 (D.D.C. 2021). “While that case concerns a statute, 15 U.S.C. § 37b, which makes evidence of certain conduct inadmissible in an action alleging antitrust violations, the Court’s decision in that case did not address the manner in which that statute should be implemented and “tells us nothing…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 37b(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 339 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2004). “596 (2004), which includes a provision entitled “Confirmation of Antitrust Status of Graduate Medical Resident Matching Programs,” an amendment to the antitrust laws that has been codified as 15 U.S.C. § 37b. Certain defendants now move under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 37b(a)(l)(A) — 2 cases
Jane Doe v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545 (3rd Cir. 2017). “” 15 U.S.C. § 37b(a)(l)(A). But as this case shows, these programs aren’t exempt from charges of sex discrimination.”
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 339 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2004). “596 (2004), which includes a provision entitled “Confirmation of Antitrust Status of Graduate Medical Resident Matching Programs,” an amendment to the antitrust laws that has been codified as 15 U.S.C. § 37b. Certain defendants now move under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 37b(a)(l)(E) — 1 case
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 339 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2004). “596 (2004), which includes a provision entitled “Confirmation of Antitrust Status of Graduate Medical Resident Matching Programs,” an amendment to the antitrust laws that has been codified as 15 U.S.C. § 37b. Certain defendants now move under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 37b(b)(2) — 3 cases
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 339 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2004). “596 (2004), which includes a provision entitled “Confirmation of Antitrust Status of Graduate Medical Resident Matching Programs,” an amendment to the antitrust laws that has been codified as 15 U.S.C. § 37b. Certain defendants now move under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of…”
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 226 F.R.D. 7 (D.D.C. 2005). “596 (2004), which includes a provision entitled “Confirmation of Antitrust Status of Graduate Medical Resident Matching Programs,” an amendment to the antitrust laws that has been codified as 15 U.S.C. § 37b (“Match legislation”). See Jung v.”
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 184 F. App'x 9 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “Section 207 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 37b, not only exempts “graduate medical education residency matching program[s]” from antitrust laws, but it also bars evidence of any participation in such programs in support of a claim in federal court that antitrust laws have been…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 37b(b)(3) — 1 case
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 339 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2004). “596 (2004), which includes a provision entitled “Confirmation of Antitrust Status of Graduate Medical Resident Matching Programs,” an amendment to the antitrust laws that has been codified as 15 U.S.C. § 37b. Certain defendants now move under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 37b(b)(l)(B)(i) — 1 case
Jane Doe v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545 (3rd Cir. 2017). “” 15 U.S.C. § 37b(a)(l)(A). But as this case shows, these programs aren’t exempt from charges of sex discrimination.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 37b(b)(l)(C) — 1 case
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 184 F. App'x 9 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “Section 207 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 37b, not only exempts “graduate medical education residency matching program[s]” from antitrust laws, but it also bars evidence of any participation in such programs in support of a claim in federal court that antitrust laws have been…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 37b(c) — 1 case
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges, 339 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2004). “596 (2004), which includes a provision entitled “Confirmation of Antitrust Status of Graduate Medical Resident Matching Programs,” an amendment to the antitrust laws that has been codified as 15 U.S.C. § 37b. Certain defendants now move under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.