Economic Regulation of Next-Generation Sequencing

133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).

132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CLIA Program and HIPAA Privacy Rule; Patients' Access to Test Reports, Federal Register 79 (February 6, 2014): 7290–7316 (to be codified at 42 C.F.R. pt. 493 and 45 C.F.R. pt. 164).

Pub. L. No. 100-578, 102 Stat. 2903 (1988) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 263a).

42 C.F.R. pt. 493 (2013).

Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 18, 26, 29, 42 U.S.C.)

45 C.F.R. pts. 160, 164 (2013).

Pub. L. 110–233, 122 Stat. 881 (2008) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000ff – 2000ff-11).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to the HIPAA Rules, Federal Register 78 (January 25, 2013): 5566–5702 (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. pts. 160 & 164); see 45 C.F.R. § 160.103 (2013).

Javitt G. H. and Carner K. S. , Regulation of Next Generation Sequencing, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42, no. 3, Supp. (2014): 9–21.

Topol E. , The Creative Destruction of Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 2012): at 79 and 94.

Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. System of Oversight of Genetic Testing: A Response to the Charge of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (April 2008): at 17, available at <http://osp.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/SAC-GHS_oversight_report.pdf> (last visited June 27, 2014).

Evans J. P. , When Is a Medical Finding ‘Incidental'? Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 7 (2013): 515–516, at 515.

Miles J. J. , Health Care and Antitrust Law (Eagan, MN: Thompson-Reuters, 2014): at § 5.02.

Id.

See Evans , supra note 13, at 515.

Id.

Conley J. M. Cook-Deegan R. and Lazaro-Munoz G. , Myriad After Myriad: The Proprietary Data Dilemma, North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology 15, no. 4 (2014): 597–637.

Cook-Deegan R. , Myriad Continues to Fight as Judge Denies Injunction, The Cancer Letter 40, no. 1 (March 14, 2014): 10–14, at 10, 12; Evans B. J. , Mining the Human Genome after Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Genetics in Medicine 16, no. 7 (2013): 504–509.

Evans B. J. , Preventing Harms to Patients Who Know Too Much about Their Own Genomes, paper presented at Behavioral Economics, Law, and Health Policy, 2014 Annual Conference, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics, Cambridge, MA, May 3, 2014.

See Topol , supra note 11, at 93–94.

Personal communication from Robert Cook-Deegan to author (April 27, 2014).

Green R. C. Berg J. S. Grody W. W. Kalia S. S. and Korf B. R. , ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing, Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 7 (2013): 565–574, at 570–571.

Lunshof J. E. Church G. W. and Prainsack B. , Raw Personal Data: Providing Access, Science 343, no. 6169 (January 2014): 373–74.

See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 3.

See Evans , supra note 20.

Vorhaus D. , DNA DTC: The Return of Direct to Consumer Whole Genome Sequencing, Genomics Law Report (Nov. 29, 2012), available at <http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2012/11/29/dna-dtc-the-return-of-direct-to-consumer-whole-genome-sequencing/> (last visited June 27, 2014).

Vorhaus D. , DTC Testing and the FDA: Is There an End in Sight to the Regulatory Uncertainty? Genomics Law Report (June 16, 2011), available at <http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2011/06/16/dtc-genetic-testing-and-the-fda-is-there-an-end-in-sight-to-the-regulatory-uncertainty/> (last visited June 27, 2014).

Cook-Deegan R. Conley J. M. Evans J. P. and Vorhaus D. , The Next Controversy in Genetic Testing: Clinical Data as Trade Secrets? European Journal of Human Genetics 21, no. 6 (2013): 585–588, at 585; Eggington J. M. Bowles K. R. Moyes K. Manley S. and Esterling L. , A Comprehensive Laboratory-Based Program for Classification of Variants of Uncertain Significance in Hereditary Cancer Genes, Clinical Genetics 86, no. 3 (2014): 229–237.

Cook-Deegan , supra note 29, at 585–586.

Shirts B. A. Jacobson A. Jarvik G. P. and Browning B. L. , Large Numbers of Individuals Are Required to Classify and Define Risk for Rare Variants in Known Cancer Risk Genes, Genetics in Medicine 16, no. 7 (2013): 529–534.

See Eggington , supra note 29.

See Cook-Deegan , supra note 29, at 585.

Id.

Evans B. J. , Much Ado about Data Ownership, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 25, no. 1 (2011): 69–130, at 82–86.

See Cook-Deegan , supra note 29, at 587.

Id.

See Evans , supra note 19, at 507.

See Conley , supra note 18.

See Evans , supra note 20.

Id.

See Conley , supra note 18.

See Cook-Deegan , supra note 29, at 586.

Waller S. W. , The Past, Present, and Future of Monopolization Remedies, Antitrust Law Journal 76, no. 1 (2009): 11–29, at 11 and 15–16.

Seee.g., Associated Gas Distribs. v. FERC, 824 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1006 (1988).

Pub. L. 95–617, 92 Stat. 3117 (1978) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 7, 15, 16, 42, 43 U.S.C.)

Spence D. B. and Prentice R. , The Transformation of American Energy Markets and the Problem of Market Power, Boston College Law Review 53, no. 1 (2012): 131–202, at 146–147.

Id., at 147.

Pub. L. 102–486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 2, 11, 12, 15, 16, 25, 26, 30, 42, 48 U.S.C.)

See Spence and Prentice , supra note 47, at 147–148.

Farrell J. and Weiser P. J. , Modularity, Vertical Integration, and Open Access Policies: Towards and Convergence of Antitrust and Regulation in the Internet Age, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 17, no. 1 (2003): 85–134, at 95.

Associated Gas Distribs. v. FERC, 824 F.2d 981, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1006 (1988).

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Energy, Promoting Wholesale Competition through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Federal Register 61 (May 10, 1996): 21,540-21,716, at 21,560-61; see Spence & Prentiss, supra note 47, at 147–148.

Pub. L. 104–104,110 Stat. 56 (1996) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15, 18, 47 U.S.C.)

Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 402–03 (2004) [hereinafter Trinko]; Robinson G. O. , On Refusing to Deal with Rivals, Cornell Law Review 87, no. 5 (2002): 1177–1232, at 1217–1223.

45 C.F.R. § 164.524 (2013).

See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 3.

Ekstrom L. Flaherty D. Henry J. Kulkarni S. Pattabiraman K. and Rudolf T. , Capturing Value for Dx in Personalized Medicine – Is There a Path? in Personalized Medicine: The Path Forward (Palo Alto, CA: McKinsey and Company, 2013): at 34.

See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 9.

Pub. L. 111–5, Div. A, Title XIII, Div. B, Title IV, 123 Stat. 226, 467 (2009) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.)

42 U.S.C. § 17935(d)(1) (Supp. V 2012).

Id. § 17935(d)(2).

45 C.F.R. § 164.512(i) (2013).

See Shirts , supra note 31.

Evans B. J. , Sustainable Access to Data for Postmarketing Medical Product Safety Surveillance under the Amended HIPAA Privacy Rule, Health Matrix 24 (2014): 11–47, at 20–24.

Dogan S. L. and Lemley M. A. , Antitrust Law and Regulatory Gaming, Texas Law Review 87, no. 4 (2009): 685–729, at 690.

Interstate Commerce Act, ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379 (1887) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C.)

Communications Act of 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064 (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. §§ 151–620).

Public Utility Act of 1935, ch. 687, 49 Stat. 803 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 16 U.S.C.)

Natural Gas Act of 1938, ch. 556, 52 Stat. 821 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 717–717w).

Frischmann B. and Waller S. W. , Revitalizing Essential Facilities, Antitrust Law Journal 75 (2008): 1–65, at 4.

See Evans , supra note 35, at 92.

See Cook-Deegan , supra note 29, at 586.

See Evans , supra note 19, at 508; Evans, supra note 65, at 26–27.

132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

Zacks Equity Research, Myriad Genetics Jumps on Medicare Decision, April 3, 2014, available at <http://www.zacks.com/commentary_print.php?article_id=128671type=BLOcollab> (last visited July 1, 2014).

See Evans , supra note 19, at 5.

Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Information Privacy, Frequently Asked Questions: available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/faq/right_to_request_a_restriction/512.html> (last visited August 22, 2013).

45 C.F.R. § 164.501 (2013).

15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7 (2012).

Id. § 1.

Id. § 2; Miles, supra note 14, at § 5:1.

15 U.S.C. §§ 12–27 (2012); 29 U.S.C. § 52 (2012).

15 U.S.C. §§ 13–13b, 21a (2012).

15 U.S.C. § 18 (2012).

Id. § 14.

Id. §§ 41–58.

Id. § 45.

See Miles, supra note 14, at § 1:1.

Seee.g., United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U.S. 495, 525 (1948) (noting that vertical integration is not itself unlawful); Byars v. Bluff City News Co., 609 F.2d 843, 861 (6th Cir. 1979) (observing that firms, in theory, will only pursue vertical integration when the firm is at least as efficient as other firms in the segment into which it integrates).

Seee.g., Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 480 (1992) (noting that monopoly power under § 2 of the Sherman Act demands something greater than the market power required for purposes of § 1); Safeway Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 761 F. Supp. 2d 874, 886 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (stating monopoly power is best understood to be the substantial degree of market power).

United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 571(1966); Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc'ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 447–48 (2009) (Simply possessing monopoly power and charging monopoly prices does not violate § 2); Trinko, 540 U.S. at 407 (The mere possession of monopoly power … is not … unlawful).

United States. v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. at 570–71.

Trinko , 540 U.S. at 407; Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985).

See Miles , supra note 14, at § 5:7.

Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc'ns, Inc., 555 U.S. at 448.

Trinko , 540 U.S. at 414 (citing United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d. 34, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2001)).

See Evans , supra note 65, at 30–32.

Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 324 U.S. 581, 589 (1945).

See Evans , supra note 19, at 508.

Spulber D. F. and Yoo C. S. , Mandating Access to Telecom and the Internet: The Hidden Side of Trinko, Columbia Law Review 107, no. 8 (2007): 1822–1907, at 1841–42; Joskow P. L. and Noll R. G. , The Bell Doctrine: Applications in Telecommunications, Electricity, and Other Network Industries, Stanford Law Review 51, no. 5 (1999): 1249–1315, at 1250–1251.

See Joskow and Noll , supra note 101, at 1262–1263.

Margiotta P. , Communications Law: The Local Exchange Carrier Price Cap Order, George Washington University Law Review 63, no. 5 (1995): 723–758, at 724–725.

See Farrell & Weiser , supra note 51, at 94.

See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 480 (1992) (quoting Times–Picayune Publ'g Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594, 611 (1953).

Ill. ex rel. Hartigan v. Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co., 730 F. Supp. 826, 883 (C.D. Ill. 1990), aff'd, 935 F.2d 1469 (7th Cir. 1991).

Trinko , 540 U.S. at 408 (quoting Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp, 472 U.S. 585, 601 (1985)).

Id., at 408, 414.

410 U.S. 366 (1973).

Id., at 377.

Id., at 368–69.

Id., at 377 (citing Lorain Journal v. United States, 342 U.S. 143, 154 (1951).

Id., at 381–82.

472 U.S. 585 (1985).

540 U.S. 398 (2004).

Id., at 409.

Id., at 409–10.

Id., at 402–404.

Id., at 404.

Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15, 18, 47 U.S.C.)

Trinko , 540 U.S.at 401.

Id., at 409.

Scalia A. and Garner B. A. , Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (St. Paul, MN: ThomsonWest, 2012): at 174 (citing United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65 (1936)).

See Evans , supra note 19, at 506–506.

Id.

Id.

Trinko, 540 U.S at 409.

Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 381–82 (1973).

Trinko , 540 U.S at 411.

Id., at 412.

Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted).

See Mills , supra note 14, at § 5:8, n. 10 (noting that it is an unanswered question whether a reasonable price may need to include some measure of monopoly rent in situations where the facility in question is truly irreproducible and unique).

708 F.2d 1081, 1132–33 (7th Cir. 1983).

See e.g., Loren Data Corp. v. GXS, Inc., 501 F. App'x 275, 284 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2835 (2013).

MCI Commc'ns Corp. v. AT&T, 708 F.2d at 1132–33.

Waller S. W. and Tasch W. , Harmonizing Essential Facilities, Antitrust Law Journal 76 (2010): 741–767, at 741; Cotter T. L. , The Essential Facilities Doctrine (University of Minnesota Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-18, 2008): 6–11, available at <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1125368> (last visited April 29, 2014).

Seee.g., Areeda P. , Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles, Antitrust Law Journal 58, no. 4 (1989): 841– 853; Cotter, supra note 136, at 11.

Trinko , 540 U.S. at 411.

Pitofsky R. Patterson D. and Hooks J. , The Essential Facilities Doctrine under U.S. Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Journal 70, no. 2 (2002): 443–462, at 443–444.

United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 224 U.S. 383 (1912); Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945); Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973); Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985).

See Cotter , supra note 136, at 11.

Id.

See Cotter , supra note 136, at 14–15.

Id.

See Miles , supra note 14, at § 5:7.

Id. at § 5:8.

See Evans , supra note 19, at 508.

Associated Gas Distribs. v. FERC, 824 F.2d 981, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1006 (1988)

See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, supra note 53, at 21560–61.

Trinko , 540 U.S. at 402–03; Robinson, supra note 55, at 1217–23.

See Associated Gas Distribs. v. FERC, 824 F.2d at 998.

See Waller and Tasch , supra note 136, at 741.