Support our online development, and advance our onground research initiatives in free market economics, as we seek to showcase the brightest Next-Gen minds.
THE ME-P DISCLAIMER: Posts, comments and opinions do not necessarily represent iMBA, Inc., but become our property after submission. Copyright © 2006 to-date. iMBA, Inc allows colleges, universities, medical and financial professionals and related clinics, hospitals and non-profit healthcare organizations to distribute our proprietary essays, photos, videos, audios and other documents; etc. However, please review copyright and usage information for each individual asset before submission to us, and/or placement on your publication or web site. Attestation references, citations and/or back-links are required. All other assets are property of the individual copyright holder.
Denies GA Hospital Peer-Review Case
Staff Writers
According to Gregg Blesch of Modern Healthcare, the US Supreme Court just declined to review a case that hospitals hoped would clarify whether federal courts must defer to state laws protecting the confidentiality of peer review.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in June that peer-review records should be fair game for a urologist attempting to prove he was the target of racial discrimination at 186-bed Houston Medical Center [HMC] in Warner Robins, GA.
HMC appealed to the Supreme Court. No federal law provides a privilege for hospital peer-review, yet all states have laws that protect the confidentiality hospitals say they need in order to foster the participation and candor crucial to identifying and addressing mistakes.
And so, have you ever been on a hospital peer-review panel, and what are your thoughts on this case regarding privilege and confidentiality?
Related information: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421
Share this:
Filed under: Health Law & Policy | Tagged: Health Law & Policy |
The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants 
Supreme Court Allows Reduced H.I. Expenses
Did you also know that the US Supreme Court recently let stand a federal policy that allows employers to reduce their health insurance expenses for retired workers once they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare?
The justices turned down an appeal by the 39-million-member AARP to undo a rule that essentially allows employers to treat retirees differently depending on their age, according to the Associated Press.
The rule was put into place by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], with the support of labor unions and other groups, who worried that employers would greatly reduce or eliminate health benefits for millions of retirees if they could not take Medicare into account when structuring the health-benefit packages they voluntarily provided their retired workers
The EEOC rule makes clear that employers can spend more on retirees under 65 years of age than those over 65 without running afoul of age-discrimination laws.
-Debra
LikeLike