The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), also known as the CMS Innovation Center, is a division within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Established by the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the CMS Innovation Center's primary mission is to test innovative payment and service delivery models with the goal of reducing costs while preserving or enhancing the quality of care within Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Key Objectives:
The reference is to a 2021 post, https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2021/shooting-fish-barrel. Opening paragraph: “That’s an unkind title, I know. But really, when the plaintiff’s attorney submitted a pharmacist’s affidavit in opposition to a physician’s motion for summary judgment (which was supported by a physician’s affidavit), what did he think was going to happen?”
About four months ago, I blogged about the surprising (to me) prevalence of noncompete agreements in medicine. “[N]early half of primary care physicians in group practices and more than a third of physicians employed at hospitals or free-standing clinics [are] bound by a noncompete agreement. The prevalence of noncompete agreements has increased as more doctors are now employed by hospitals or large health systems, which have been steadily buying up group medical practices . . .
In Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928), which we all remember from our first-year torts class, Judge Benjamin Cardozo restated, in his uniquely pithy manner, the common law rule that whether a duty of care exists depends on the foreseeability of harm: “The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension. . . .
Health insurance fraud, broadly defined, is any deceptive practice by healthcare or healthcare-related providers (physicians, hospitals, clinics, diagnostic testing labs, certain allied health professionals, suppliers of durable medical equipment, etc.) to unlawfully obtain payments from private insurance companies, Medicare and/or Medicaid. These fraudulent activities take a wide variety of forms, bearing witness to the inventiveness of those bent on health insurance fraud. Here are some of the common types, with examples provided for clarification if needed.
The plaintiff in a medical malpractice case engaged two experts, who were deposed in the course of discovery. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment; the plaintiff submitted affidavits from the two experts in her opposition to the motion; and the defendants moved to strike the affidavits. The trial court granted the motion to strike and the motion for summary judgment because the affidavits included “information that is materially different from the deposition each affiant provided. There is no sufficient explanation for the change in testimony by either [expert], other than
Accountants play a key role in litigation by providing a range of specialized services that can support the legal process. Their expertise in financial matters allows them to offer insights and evidence that can significantly influence the outcome of a case. Here are several ways accountants can assist in litigation.
This subject was brought to my attention by a recent Washington Post article, It begins, as articles like this often do, by focusing on one person:
Neurology, the branch of medicine that deals with the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the nervous system, encompasses many subspecialties, but there is no consensus as to what they are. The subspecialties recognized by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, https://www.abms.org/board/american-board-of-psychiatry-neurology/#abpn-n, and the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties,
A patient who goes to the emergency room, if conscious, is mostly concerned with getting care, not with untangling the contractual relationship between the hospital and the doctors who work there. And yet the characterization of the hospital-doctor relationship has profound implications for a patient’s ability to recover against the hospital for negligent treatment. This case asks us to decide when a hospital may be liable for the negligence of a doctor working in, but not as an employee of, a hospital in its emergency room.
