Mr. Mark J. Botti This is Me

Education

 View all 142 references Web References

1. 1. www.straffordpub.com

   www.straffordpub.com/products/ - [Cached]

   Published on: 4/4/2008   Last Visited: 5/23/2008

   Mark J. Botti, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Washington, D.C.He focuses on antitrust matters and has extensive experience involving the antitrust review of mergers and acquisitions.While at the Department of Justice, he litigated complex antitrust claims.

2. 2. www.akingumpcases.com

   www.akingumpcases.com/attorney - [Cached]

   Published on: 10/27/2007   Last Visited: 10/27/2007

   Mark J. BottiAkin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP- attorney
   ...
   MARK J. BOTTI, Partner
   ...
   Mark J. Botti focuses on antitrust matters.
   
   Before joining Akin Gump in 2007, Mr. Botti served for 13 years at the Department of Justice in a wide range of litigation and policy positions within the Antitrust Division.As chief of the Litigation I Section, Mr. Botti litigated complex antitrust claims on behalf of the United States, bringing monopolization cases, horizontal conspiracy suits and merger challenges in some of the most vital sectors of the economy, including health care, insurance, forestry products and agriculture.During his five-year tenure as chief of Litigation I, his team tried the only merger case (United States v. UPM-Kymmene Oyj) and the only monopolization case (United States v. Dentsply) litigated to judgment by the Antitrust Division.Over the course of his career, Mr. Botti appeared and played a major role in 10 cases that the Department litigated.
   
   Mr. Botti has extensive, high-level experience involving the antitrust review of mergers and acquisitions.In his position as chief of the Litigation I Section, he supervised among many other matters the Antitrust Division's investigation of the acquisition of Maytag by Whirlpool and the partial challenge to UnitedHealth's acquisition of PacifiCare.Prior to heading the Litigation I Section, Mr. Botti served for three years as assistant chief of the Litigation II Section, where he worked on a number of other matters, including the Division's challenges to Lockheed Martin's acquisition of Northrop Grumman, Georgia-Pacific's acquisition of Fort James and Volvo's acquisition of Mack Trucks from Renault.During his time at the Division, Mr. Botti consulted regularly with international antitrust enforcement authorities on particular matters and the development of their merger regulations and practices.He appeared in eight merger cases that the Department litigated during his tenure, three of which were tried to judgment.
   
   In addition to his litigation and investigation activities, during his time with the Department, Mr. Botti provided policy and enforcement advice to the assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division and to the broader executive branch and the private bar.He worked in many industrial sectors, including mass consumer products, national defense, industrial manufacturing and mass media.He was the career Division official who directly oversaw the extensive hearings held by the Division and the Federal Trade Commission on health care during the years 2004-2005 and the drafting of the agencies' joint seminal report, Improving Health Care: A Dose of Competition.
   
   Before joining the government, Mr. Botti was a partner at another Washington, D.C., law firm.
   
   Mr. Botti received his A.B. in 1982 from Dartmouth College and his J.D. cum laude in 1985 from the Case Western Reserve University School of Law.He clerked for the Honorable John M. Manos of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio from 1985 to 1987 and for the Honorable David A. Nelson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit from 1987 to 1988.He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.
   
   Active in the American Bar Association, Mr. Botti is a vice chair of the Health Care and Pharmaceuticals Committee and is a co-editor of the health care portions of the Association's Antitrust Law Developments VI (2007).

3. 3. CON Laws Pose Threat to Health Care Markets, DOJ Antitrust Division Official Tells Georgia Legislative Committee | Crowell & Moring Health Law News

   www.crowell.com/NewsEvents/New - [Cached]

   Published on: 3/12/2007   Last Visited: 2/27/2008

   Mark Botti, Chief of the Litigation I Section of the DOJ's Antitrust Division, spoke before Georgia's State House of Representatives CON Special Committee.Mr. Botti explained that "by their very nature, CON laws create barriers to entry and expansion and thus are anathema to free markets."
   
   Mr. Botti explained that CON laws create regulatory barriers to healthy competition with little or no justification.He offered several reasons to support his conclusion: (1) the original rationale for CON laws no longer exists; (2) protecting revenues of incumbents is an insufficient justification; (3) CON laws impose costs and facilitate anticompetitive behavior; and (4) CON laws lead to lessened competition and higher prices.
   
   Mr. Botti contended that the original rationale for CON laws was based on the government's cost-plus reimbursement program for Medicare, which no longer exists.The cost-plus reimbursement program incentivized over-investment, and the goal of the CON laws was to decrease healthcare costs by decreasing excessive capital investment.Governments wanted to prevent providers from unnecessarily expanding their services, thereby increasing costs.Most studies show that CON laws were unsuccessful in containing healthcare costs, he said.More importantly, the government no longer reimburses on a cost-plus basis, making this rationale for CON laws moot, according to Botti.
   
   Some supporters of CON laws have argued that hospitals should be protected against additional competition so that they can use their profits to cross-subsidize care for uninsured or under-insured patients, he noted.Mr. Botti's response to this argument is that, to the extent legislatures decide to cover health care costs for the indigent, there are more efficient ways to accomplish that goal without creating regulatory barriers to entry into the health care markets.
   
   Mr. Botti further discussed how CON laws create an opportunity for existing competitors to exploit regulatory procedures and thwart or delay new competition.
   ...
   Contrary to claims made by CON law proponents, studies show that removal of CON laws does not result in higher prices, Botti claimed.In fact, the opposite is true, he said, because the presence of CON laws results in higher healthcare costs.Mr. Botti cited a Georgia State University study revealing that rigorous CON regulation is associated with less competitive markets and higher prices for private inpatient care.
   
   Mr. Botti encouraged the Committee to use a balancing test to determine whether the benefit of maintaining Georgia's CON laws might be outweighed by the costs.He explained that CON laws should be evaluated with the following in mind: (1) whether there is a clearly articulated and significant justification; (2) whether the law harms consumers; and (3) whether there are alternative ways to structure CON laws to diminish anticompetitive barriers to entry.Finally, Mr. Botti noted that he is aware of no evidence supporting the claim that elimination of CON laws results in any harm to citizens.In fact, he said, all the evidence he has seen supports the opposite conclusion.