The issue of what happens when a parent who has to pay support has income from a special needs trust has been recently addressed by the Appellate Division in an unreported (non precedential) decision.
This blog series has been following breaches of Protected Health Information that have been reported on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services list of breaches of unsecured PHI affecting 500 or more individuals.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 28, 2012 ruling upholding most of the Affordable Care Act by a narrow 5-4 margin took many experts by surprise.
Postings on this blog series have been following the continuing parade of security and privacy breaches of Protected Health Information (“PHI”) that have been reported on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services list (the “HHS List”) of breaches of unsecured PHI affecting 500 or more individuals.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently published proposed rules setting forth the “Stage 2” criteria that eligible providers (EPs), eligible hospitals (EHs), and critical access hospitals (CAHs) (referred to herein collectively as “providers”) would be required to meet in order to qualify for Medicare andor Medicaid incentive payments for the use of electronic health records (EHRs) (“Stage 2 Proposal”).
An increasing number of parents, often on the advice of counsel, are refusing to give consent to allow school districts or intermediate units to access medical assistance funds to pay for special education services that are both medical and educational.
Federal prosecutors continue to focus their efforts on preventing health care fraud, as evidenced by a recent case arising in Texas.
As a follow up to last week's entry about the Supreme Court taking on the PPACA cases, today the Supreme Court determined to hear three separate cases on the constitutionality of PPACA.
Remember the 1990s fad when managed care companies proposed to pay for physician, hospital and ancillary services in a bundled payment to be divided up by the providers?
In an extensive Medicaid fraud case, United States v. Bradley, 2011 WL 2565480 (11th Cir., June 29, 2011), the defendants were convicted and subsequently consented to forfeiture orders which entitled the government to seize the defendants’ company and to take a $40 million judgment against them