There are two standards of legality for judging potential antitrust violations.

A. Per Se Rule - This rule conclusively presumes that the restraints are a violation of the antitrust rules and is applied only on certain types of restraints that are, economically speaking, "without redeeming value" and "substantially harm competition". Arrangements subject to the per se rule include group boycotts, price fixing, division of markets and tying arrangements.

1. In Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that a maximum fee schedule set by physicians was per se unlawful as price-fixing.
   
   
2. Generally, however, courts have been hesitant to apply the per se rule to healthcare arrangements because of professionals' ethical obligations and courts' inexperience in determining the affect on competition of many healthcare arrangements. See Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975).
   
   

B. Rule of Reason - Under this rule, restraints are analyzed by examining the purpose, operation and effect of an agreement. Most arrangements in the healthcare industry are judged under the rule of reason standard. See e.g., FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986). (Rule of reason analysis applied to dentists' withholding of x-rays from insurance company.)