A Storm is Brewing: How Federal Ambivalence Regarding Below-Cost Pricing Turns a Blind Eye to Monopoly Risk in the Beer Market

Large beer manufacturers, known colloquially as “Big Beer,” have been steadily losing market share to small, independent craft breweries. Big Beer wants it market share back, and in some cases will go to great lengths to try to defend its dominance—even anticompetitive conduct. Below-cost pricing is one avenue that presents a risk to independent craft breweries. This Article examines how Big Beer can manipulate the beer market in its favor by engaging in predatory pricing. Further, this Article proposes a solution that could be implemented on a nation-wide scale to curtail Big Beer’s anticompetitive activities with respect to pricing

Independent Craft Breweries Struggle Under Distribution Laws that Create a Power Imbalance in Favor of Wholesalers

Independent craft breweries are facing historic challenges under the COVID-19 pandemic. To make matters worse, many states prohibit a brewery from terminating a distribution contract with a wholesaler absent statutorily defined “good cause,” which typically means fraud, bankruptcy, or other illegal conduct. In this context, lagging sales or poor distribution performance are not grounds for a brewery to terminate a distribution contract. This means that it is nearly impossible, legally or financially, for an independent craft brewery to terminate a distribution contract with an unsatisfactory wholesaler. In essence, states have statutorily tipped the balance of power in favor of distributors over independent craft breweries based on the allegations that large beer manufacturers have too much bargaining power over distributors. One size does not fit all. Indeed, California is currently entertaining a bill to move from a more permissive relationship between breweries and distributors (allowing for termination generally) to a much more strict good cause model that other states have adopted. States must re-evaluate their distribution laws and reject good cause standards that tie a small brewery to a distributor in perpetuity. Stated plainly, good cause distribution statutes harm independent craft breweries, competition, and ultimately consumers

2001 Michigan hospital CQI/TQM study

In recent years, there has been significant interest in the application of total quality management/continuous quality improvement (TQM/CQI) within health care organizations. The health care industry, in its quest to improve outcomes with fewer resources, began to look at CQI/TQM as a possible solution. To date, the most comprehensive and enthusiastic response to efforts to improve quality while containing or lowering costs is reflected in hospitals\u27 commitment to continuous quality improvement/total quality management (CQI/TQM). The health care industry, particularly hospitals, has embraced the concepts of CQI/TQM with the belief that adoption will lead to an improvement in both the quality and efficiency of health service delivery (Shortell, 1995). The purpose of this study is to assess CQI/TQM program elements, activities and barriers and to evaluate perceptions of CQI/TQM program success in Michigan hospitals. The study focuses on answering the following central questions: What do Michigan CQI programs look like? To what extent do Michigan programs match model programs? What are the perceived outcomes of CQI? and, What leads to a successful CQI program? The hospitals included in this study were selected from a list of Michigan hospitals accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). As of June 2001 there were 152 JCAHO accredited hospitals in Michigan. A 50% random sample of these hospitals was taken. The first wave of surveys were sent in June and August 2001. Surveys were sent directly to the individual who was in charge of the hospital\u27s CQI program. The results of this study make it clear that CQI program elements/activities are extremely important to a hospital\u27s CQI program. In addition, the results of the study suggest that greater focus of CQI program elements/activities might increase enthusiasm toward CQI. Finally, Michigan hospitals need to commit to breaking down barriers to CQI---most importantly lack of management support. While Michigan hospitals appear to have made a good start with their programs, perceived outcomes, levels of enthusiasm or commitment toward are nowhere near what they could be. What remains to be seen is how Michigan hospitals will meet this challenge