{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03198433420365535, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016971279373368148, 'mean_word_length': 5.360995850622406, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Competition between hospitals--from a legal perspective].

Competition between hospitals exists in many different fields. In legal terms this competition is shaped by disputes over the status of "hospitals forming part of the Hospital Plan" (Plankrankenhaus). The German Federal Constitutional Court's ruling of January 14, 2004 granted hospital authorities the right of action for unfair competition. According to the Federal Administrative Court's ruling of September 25, 2008, however, third-party protection is limited to cases where the hospital filing the suit has itself unsuccessfully applied for inclusion in the state-level hospitals plan for the market segment served by the accepted hospital. In contrast, action that merely challenges an unfair preference of a competitor will remain inadmissible. Third-party protection between hospitals is also under way in the field of "Integrated Healthcare" (Integrierte Versorgung) (Sect. 140a et seqq. Book V of the German Social Security Code-SGB V): in the case of ECJ C-300/07 on December 16, 2008 (Oymanns/AOK Rheinland & Hamburg) the Advocate General in his final submissions not only expressed the opinion that the statutory health insurance funds are contract-placing authorities, but also argued that integration contracts are public orders. If the European Court of Justice (ECJ) takes the Advocate General's view, future integration contracts will become subject to the regulations governing public orders and thus also subject to the relevant verification procedure.