National Capital Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons

L \ I T E D ST4TES OF 4L1ERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
U A S W I U G T 0 1 , D C 	20580
Robert J, 	Wilensw, 	M,D,
President-Elect
National Capital Society of Plastic and
Reconstructive Surgeons
5530 Wisconsin Avenue
S u i t e 855
C h e y Chase, 	Md. 	20815
Dear Brl WiBensaRy:
This letter- responds to your reFest 	for a staff a*isoq
spinion coneeralng a proposal by 	the National Capital Area
Society of Plastic and Reesnstsuetive Surgeons ( " t h e Society") to
establish a physician panel to render advisory opinions regarding
westions or disputes involving fees charged by pledere?,of t h e
Society, 	Yau ask whether the proposed progrm, 	described below,
would violate Seetion 5 of the Federal Trade Comission A c t ,
According to your letter, the Society is a regional branch
of the meriean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons,
which is a major national professional association of plastic
surgeons, 	The Society proposes to set up a panel 	composed sf
sevesal of its mebers that would be available to mePrabers, to
esnswers, 	and to third party payors 	to give advisory opinions
concerning dispules.sr pestions involving specific 	fees charged
by 	individual plastic surgeons, 	Participation in t h e evaluation
process would wvcr$untaq, 	and fee deteminations made by the
panel would h pwely 	advissq, 	Each case would be evaluated
based on AGs particular eircmstances, 	w i t h no effort made to
est&$isb7%fee~ c a l e ,floss, or ceiling for any specific
proceduw,' Meisions cod: the panel would not be disclosed except
to the parties involved, and there would be 	no compilation of
decisions of the review panel, 	The panel does not intend to
collect, or compile I n f o m a t i o n 	on the fees charged by me&ers,
and does not 	intend to disseminate to the me&ership 	infomation
on fees or appropriate levels sf charges for any semiees,

Robert J. Wifensw, 	M,D,
Page 2
Based on the i n f o m a t i o n which you have provided to us, 	i t
does not 	appear that the proposed action sf the Society would
violate Seetion 5 	o f 	the Federal Trade Comission A c t D 	The
proposed fee review progrm appears to be similar in many
respects to those which have been appsoved.in t h e gtomission's
Iowa Dental Association ata.Pisoq opinion, 	9 9 F,T.C. 6 4 8 	(1982),
and i n subsewent 	staff opinions, 	In particular, 	the factors 	of
v o l u n t a q participation in the progrm, 	non-binding 	decisions,
lack of dissemination of panel decisions beyond the participants
to the dispute, 	and the lack o f 	an intention to establish a
general compilation os schedule of approved or Mreasonab%eM fees
appear to oqfer substantial protection against the possibility
t h a t 	the progrm would lead to a significant res%uetion in
competition mong me&ers 	of t h e 	Socie$y. 	O f 	course, 	t h i s
opinion applies 	anPy to the proposal described above, and does
not extend to eonduet t h a t 	differs in any material respect from
that described in your revest 	f o r an advieom opinion,
I hope that this discussion proves helpful to you. 	Under
the Comission's 	Rules of Practice S 	1,3(e), 	the Comlssion is
not bound by 	this ax other advice rendered 	by 	the C o m i s s i o n t s
staff. and reserves the right to rescind it at a later time and
take suck action as the publie interest may require, 	Moreover,
this office r e t a i n s 	the r i g h t 	to reconsides the q e s t i o n s
involved and, with n o t i c e to the rewesting party, to rescind or
revoke its opinion if implementation of t h e proposed progrm
results in substantial anticompetitive effects, if t h e progrm 	is
used f o r 	improper purposes, or if it would be in t h e public
interest to ds s o ,
Assistant Director