Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS
The proposed arrangement between a non-profit hospital and a for-profit emergency medical services transport services provider that serves a 17-county area in a prominently rural area of an anonymous state is the subject of a new OIG ruling. On July 3, 2003, the OIG posted Advisory Opinion No. 03-14, which involved a request concerning emergency helicopter transports of trauma patients. The unidentified state's Department of Transportation had concluded there was a real need for such emergency transport services because of higher mortality rates involved in transporting patients in this part of the state to appropriately equipped emergency rooms. Under the arrangement, the ambulance provider would buy, operate, staff, and maintain a helicopter that is equipped with a mobile intensive care unit to transport trauma victims, while the hospital would provide a landing pad next to the facility, and modest crew quarters and services for the helicopter ' which would be available to any ambulance company that brings or receives a patient to or from the facility. Moreover, emergency calls to 911 in the area are routed, based on pre-determined criteria, to a predetermined hospital, based on the patient's needs.
The OIG observed that while the arrangement could potentially result in improper remuneration that may violate the federal Antikickback Statute, there were enough factors involved that militated against the risks to Medicare and other federal programs, and that the arrangement would be for the general public good.
On June 18, 2003, Cynthia A. Bascetta, Director, Health Care-Veterans' Health and Benefit Issues for the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) provided written testimony to the House of Representatives Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations concerning VA research safeguards. Her testimony is assembled in a GAO report entitled VA Research: Actions Insufficient to Further Strengthen Human Subject Protections (GAO-03-917T) (available from the agency's Web site: ).
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.