Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
OIG Report Cites Feds
State medical licensing boards and hospitals rely on many information sources when making licensing and credentialing decisions. One major source of information is the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), a reporting system managed by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Last month, the reliability of the information contained in the NPDB was called into question after reporting failures within the federal government itself were exposed by a report issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The OIG found that three Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies had failed to report as many as 474 medical malpractice cases that should have been reported to the NPDB over the course of several years.
The Federal Claims System
The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (the Act), as amended, created the NPDB. HRSA receives and maintains records of medical malpractice payments and of adverse actions taken by hospitals, other health care entities, licensure boards and professional societies against licensed health care practitioners. The NPDB makes these reports available to hospitals and licensure boards to help them perform their background checks and make credentialing decisions. At the end of September 2004, the NPDB contained 358,590 reports on individuals, of which 263,742 were medical malpractice payment reports. More than 2.5 million requests for information were submitted to the NPDB during the first 9 months of 2004, evidencing the extent to which its records are relied upon by the health care community.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.