Parts I and II of this Comment review the foundations of the state action doctrine and focus on the development of statutory and regulatory requirements of active supervision. Next, Part III discusses the two primary components of active supervision, control and involvement, in light of the current status of state action immunity. Part IV then examines Washington State's managed competition-based reform plan as an example of an attempt to secure state action immunity for private actors. Part IV also describes the Washington state action antitrust immunity provision in some detail. Finally, Part V provides a case illustration for effective state action immunity, including suggestions for attributes of active supervision necessary to ensure immunity.
Joshua Rosenstein, Active Supervision of Health Care Cooperative Ventures Seeking State Action Antitrust Immunity, 18 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 329 (1995).