Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Proper malpractice coverage is essential to any physician's practice. When that coverage is not readily available or premiums skyrocket, that essential can seem like a luxury. Physicians facing other economic pressures in their practice not infrequently opt to reduce their insurance limits, increase their deductible, drop their coverage altogether, retire or leave the area, or discontinue what they view as high-risk portions of their practice (eg, serving on ER call rosters or accepting Medicaid or indigent patients). As a result, physicians' personal assets (and careers) are more at risk, hospitals face more liability exposure as the “deep pocket,” and patients face significantly reduced access to care.
To avoid those negative consequences, many physicians approach their hospitals for help. As with any problem, the possible solutions are varied, ranging from asking for a check for some part of the premiums to establishing an entire physician insurance program through an independent or hospital-owned insurer. Given the extensive federal regulation of hospital-physician relationships, however, these solutions can raise different problems under the Stark Law, the Medicare and Medicaid Anti-kickback Statute and the inurement, private benefit and excess benefit rules as described below. The consequences of running afoul of those laws can include significant financial penalties, exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid and, for nonprofits, loss of tax-exempt status. At the same time, however, the parameters of what assistance is permitted, and under what conditions, are the subject of some confusion among providers.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.