U.S. Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

AHIP AHM-510 Exam - Topic 4 Question 40 Discussion

Determine whether the following statement is true or false:Although most-favored-nation (MFN) clauses in contracts between health plans and healthcare providers are not per se illegal, they should be reviewed under the rule of reason analysis for antitrust purposes.
B) True, because although MFN clauses are not per se illegal, they violate antitrust laws if they have a predatory purpose and an anticompetitive effect.
A) True, because the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruled that MFN clauses are not per se illegal and the FTC encourages health plans to include them in provider contracts.
C) False, because MFN clauses involve decisions by providers concerning the level of fees to charge, and thus they are per se illegal.
D) False, because MFN clauses are not per se illegal, and thus they are exempt from antitrust laws and regulation by the FTC.

AHIP AHM-510 Exam - Topic 4 Question 40 Discussion

Actual exam question for AHIP's AHM-510 exam
Question #: 40
Topic #: 4
[All AHM-510 Questions]

Determine whether the following statement is true or false:

Although most-favored-nation (MFN) clauses in contracts between health plans and healthcare providers are not per se illegal, they should be reviewed under the rule of reason analysis for antitrust purposes.

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Lorean at May 05, 2022, 10:34 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium AHM-510 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Willodean
8 months ago
False, I thought MFN clauses were always illegal.
upvoted 0 times
...
Angelyn
8 months ago
Definitely true, predatory purpose matters a lot here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marsha
8 months ago
Wait, are we sure they're not per se illegal? Sounds off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Paulene
8 months ago
I agree, they need a rule of reason analysis for sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Della
8 months ago
True, MFN clauses are tricky but not outright illegal.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dorthy
9 months ago
This seems like a pretty straightforward OSPF question. I'm confident I can get the right answer by recalling the key fields that must match between neighbors.
upvoted 0 times
...
Serina
9 months ago
The method attribute is included, so it must be something else. Let me think through the other form attributes that could be causing the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mari
9 months ago
Hmm, this one seems straightforward. I think the answer is probably A, %%view_as_webpage%%, since that seems like the most logical personalization string to use for a 'view online' link.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel