Hub-and-spoke conspiracy - Conservapedia
In law school, criminal law teaches that there are two types of conspiracies: a " hub-and-spoke conspiracy" and a "chain conspiracy.". I am seeing this term come up a lot but I have never really been given an explanation. From the way it is used, would the spoke basically be the. Define hub-and-spoke. hub-and-spoke synonyms, hub-and-spoke pronunciation, hub-and-spoke translation, English dictionary definition of hub-and-spoke. adj.
It is much more efficient than organization designs which replicate operations across multiple sites [ 578 ]. Hub-and-spoke networks are highly scalable, with satellites being added as needed or desired [ 67 ]. When geographic distance makes satellite-to-hub access impractical, an additional hub can be created, yielding a multi-hub network [ 459 ].
The particular manner of centralization varies from institution to institution, depending on the service array provided and size of market addressed, but a common approach is as follows: Complex medical services, especially those that are technology and skills intensive, are centralized at the main campus or hub, as are services that support care delivery and lend themselves to centralization, such as human resource management, marketing, and related operations.
Basic healthcare services are broadly distributed across the network, permitting the bulk of healthcare needs of the populace to be addressed locally. Only when complexities emerge that require care falling outside of the scope of services provided at satellite facilities are patients routed to the main campus or hub for treatment [ 347 ].
The hub-and-spoke model has origins in the transportation industry.
The hub-and-spoke organization design: an avenue for serving patients well
It is perhaps best known in broad society for its use by air carriers, which due to resource scarcity and intensive demands for profits, operate these networks to accomplish more with less [ 1011 ]. The model has been adopted by and used successfully in many other industries, including retailing, education, and healthcare [ 12 — 14 ].
Strategic centralization is the key which unlocks the many benefits of the hub-and-spoke organization design [ 3 — 57 ]. Informed decisions regarding service distribution are essential, with the goal being to find an optimal balance between operations efficiency and quick, convenient access by patients to associated healthcare services. This is something that only healthcare providers themselves can decide, as service arrays, the markets in which they are offered, and populations served are unique to each entity.
However, with firsthand familiarity of an operational hub-and-spoke network, knowledge and awareness of this organization design comes to life, making construction of custom networks possible for most any interested healthcare provider. Willis-Knighton Health System and its hub-and-spoke network Headquartered in Shreveport, Louisiana, Willis-Knighton Health System is a nongovernmental, not-for-profit healthcare provider delivering comprehensive health and wellness services through multiple hospitals, numerous general and specialty medical clinics, an all-inclusive retirement community, and more.
The system holds market leadership in its served region, centered in the heart of an area known as the Ark-La-Tex, where the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas converge.
Sold in to Drs. James Willis and Joseph Knighton, the establishment continued operations and, init was renamed in honor of Drs. In the s, however, Willis-Knighton Health System embarked on a detailed growth campaign to expand its footprint beyond west Shreveport.
With funding to support growth initiatives being in short supply, executives were forced to economize, with this creating a culture of efficiency, something that characterizes Willis-Knighton Health System to this day. Through many years of effort and innovation, growth was realized. These successes afforded opportunities to explore avenues for expansion.
In doing so, executives noticed that the population of south Shreveport was expanding greatly but no hospital was serving the area. Prospects for growth remained good in and around the west Shreveport and downtown areas of the city.
Further, a departure would effectively have stranded patients in that particular region, a practice that the system has always rejected as a not-for-profit, charitable enterprise.
Hub-and-spoke conspiracy - Wikipedia
As such, executives decided to operate two hospital campuses, the original one in west Shreveport and a new one in south Shreveport. Land in south Shreveport was acquired and planning ensued. And none aided in any way, by agreement or otherwise, in procuring another's loan.
The conspiracies therefore were distinct and disconnected, not parts of a larger general scheme, both in the phase of agreement with Brown and also in the absence of any aid given to others as well as in specific object and result. There was no drawing of all together in a single, over-all, comprehensive plan. Here the contrary is true. All knew of and joined in the overriding scheme.
Paramount Film Distributing Corp. There was no direct evidence of illegal agreement among the defendants. The "crucial question" was whether the defendants' conduct against TEI "stemmed from independent decision or from an agreement, tacit or express. The Supreme Court said that was correct, because: Circumstantial evidence of consciously parallel behavior may have made heavy inroads into the traditional judicial attitude toward conspiracy, but "conscious parallelism" has not yet read conspiracy out of the Sherman Act entirely.
Klor's brought an antitrust treble damages suit, alleging a conspiracy among Broadway-Hale and the manufacturers. By pre-trial order the case one was limited to a single conspiracy charging a Sherman Act violation. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the lower courts agreed, on the grounds that Klor's was only one of many stores selling such goods, so that its elimination as a competitive factor did not substantially lessen competition in the general market—there was no public injury.
Whether a conspiracy existed was by-passed, even though the allegations appear to have described a rimless wheel conspiracy, without the spokes appliance manufacturers being connected to one another, knowing what one another were doing, or being interdependent. The Supreme Court reversed, on the grounds that Klor's sufficiently pleaded a boycott conspiracy.
The Court said, "Alleged in this complaint is a wide combination consisting of manufacturers, distributors, and a retailer. The manufacturer informed its wholesalers that it would terminate any wholesaler that sold its products to discounters, and enforced this policy.
It discussed the policy with its wholesalers and retailers to secure adherence to it, and it put together an agreement among retailers not to advertise products at prices below those recommended. Parke Davis offered the retailers its products "packaged in a competition-free wrapping.
In response to dealers' complaints organized by their trade associations, GM Los Angeles area officials treated the "principal offenders" to "unprecedented individual confrontations" and obtained promises to abandon the practices deemed objectionable.
Most agreed promptly but one put off decision for a week "to make sure that the other dealers, or most of them, had stopped their business dealings with discount houses.
GM local officials confronted reoffenders and required them to repurchase cars sold in violation of policy.
But the Supreme Court reversed. The dealers collaborated, through the associations and otherwise, among themselves and with General Motors, both to enlist the aid of General Motors and to enforce dealers' promises to forsake the discounters.
The associations explicitly entered into a joint venture to assist General Motors in policing the dealers' promises, and their joint proffer of aid was accepted and utilized by General Motors. As Parke Davis had done, General Motors sought to elicit from all the dealers agreements, substantially interrelated and interdependent, that none of them would do business with the discounters.
These agreements were hammered out in meetings between nonconforming dealers and officials of General Motors' Chevrolet Division, and in telephone conversations with other dealers. It was acknowledged from the beginning that substantial unanimity would be essential if the agreements were to be forthcoming.
And once the agreements were secured, General Motors both solicited and employed the assistance of its alleged co-conspirators in helping to police them. What resulted was a fabric interwoven by many strands of joint action to eliminate the discounters from participation in the market, to inhibit the free choice of franchised dealers to select their own methods of trade, and to provide multilateral surveillance and enforcement.
This process for achieving and enforcing the desired objective can by no stretch of the imagination be described as "unilateral" or merely "parallel. United States, the Sixth Circuit found a conspiracy to sell heroin among several suppliers in bulk and their retail supplier agents street dealers who retailed it to addicts in diluted form and in smaller quantities.United - Hub & Spoke 101
The Sixth Circuit explained the structure of the hub-and-spoke conspiracy as follows: All of the appellants were either selling heroin to Poliafico and his associates, or reselling it for them, or carrying on negotiations for such sales, or making payments therefor, or delivering heroin for resale, or reselling it. The purchase of heroin and the resale of heroin, in this case, was concerned with one enterprise, which could be called the Poliafico deal, in the parlance of the underworld.
The over-all conspiracy was the plan, conceived by Poliafico and his associates, to buy and sell heroin at a profit.
- Disclosure of Personal Data
- Enhancing search results
- Associated Data
The [retail] suppliers knew that the purchases were for resale and they also knew that several conspirators were involved in the purchases. When two or more persons are shown to have been engaged in the same unlawful conspiracy, having for its object the same common and unlawful purpose, it is not necessary to prove the knowledge by one of the dealings, or even of the existence, of the others, in order to render evidence of the actions of those others admissible against that person.
There was one conspiracy in this case — the continuing scheme of buying and reselling heroin. The proofs of the government show that all appellants were associated in this scheme, some by virtue of selling or delivering the heroin to the Poliafico group, others because of being associated with the group in carrying out the scheme, collecting money through resales of the drug, making payments to suppliers, or carrying on negotiations for the purchase or resale.
All appellants knew of the conspiracy. The suppliers knew that the Poliafico group must resell the heroin at a profit; and all associated with Poliafico in the resale of the heroin knew that Poliafico must buy it from suppliers and that the resales must be at a profit. For example, in United States v.
Tramaglino,  a distinguished panel of the Second Circuit Swan, A. Hand, and Frank found a single conspiracy to buy and resell marijuana based on "evidence of several sales, at different periods, by Rosario and Tramaglino, of marihuana to the same group of buyers with knowledge on the part of the two suppliers that several conspirators were involved in the purchases and that the purchases were for resale.
This was enough, we think, to show that each appellant, as supplier, participated in, and acted to further the ends of, the conspiracy. It did not matter that neither had dealings with one another; each performed the same role at successive stages for the same ends. The overall conspiracy was the plan conceived by the intermediary group — Alvarez, Zayas, and their fellows — to buy and resell marihuana at a profit. Both Rosario and Tramaglino knew and participated in this plan by furnishing the essential ingredient — the marihuana.
A representative example is United States v. In Bruno 88 people were alleged to be members of a single conspiracy to import, sell and possess narcotics. The evidence was that over a substantial period of time a conspiracy existed embracing a great number of persons. The object of the conspiracy was to smuggle narcotics into New York and distribute them to addicts both in New York and in Texas and Louisiana.
Since the evidence did not disclose any cooperation or communication between the smugglers and either group of retailers, or between the two groups of retailers themselves. However, insisted the court: The smugglers knew that the middlemen must sell to retailers, and the retailers knew that the middlemen must buy of importers of one sort or another.
Thus the conspirators at one end of the chain knew that the unlawful business would not, and could not, stop with their buyers; and those at the other end knew that it had not begun with their sellers. That being true, a jury might have found that all the accused were embarked upon a [single] venture, in all parts of which each was a participant, and an abettor in the sense that the success of that part with which he was immediately concerned, was dependent upon the success of the whole.
There was apparently no contact between the two groups of retailers, possibly negating their being in a conspiracy together. For it was of no moment to them whether the middlemen sold to one or more groups of retailers, provided they had a market somewhere. So too of any retailer; he knew that he was a necessary link in a scheme of distribution, and the others, whom he knew to be convenient to its execution, were as much parts of a single undertaking or enterprise as two salesmen in the same shop.
We think therefore that there was only one conspiracy. E—B contended that it had established a conspiracy by showing the following: