An Unexpected Appearance of the Catalan Numbers: 10905

R. Stanley,R. Chapman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3647761

2003-08-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Medicare and state health care programs: fraud and abuse; clarification of the initial OIG safe harbor provisions and establishment of additional safe harbor provisions under the anti-kickback statute. Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS. Final rule

1999-11-19

Abstract:This final rule serves both to add new safe harbor provisions under the Federal and State health care programs' anti-kickback statute, as authorized under section 14 of Public Law 100-93, the Medicare and Medicaid Patient and Program Protection Act of 1987, and to clarify various aspects of the original safe harbor provisions now codified in 42 CFR part 1001 (originally proposed in RIN 0991-AA74). Specifically, this final rule modifies the original set of final safe harbor provisions codified in 42 CFR 1001.952 to give greater clarity to that rulemaking's original intent. In addition, this final rule sets forth an expanded set of safe harbor provisions designed to protect additional payment and business practices from criminal prosecution or civil sanctions under the anti-kickback provisions of the statute.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant programs; civil money penalties and assessments for false or improper claims--Department of Health and Human Services. Notice of proposed rulemaking

1982-12-30

Abstract:These proposed regulations are intended to strengthen the Department's ability to protect the health care financing programs against persons and organizations who defraud and abuse those programs. The regulations would specify procedures for implementing the authority provided to the Department by section 2105 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Pub. L. 97-35), as amended by section 137(b)(26) of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-248), to impose civil money penalties and assessments administratively for the filing of false or certain other improper claims in the Medicare, Medicaid, or Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant programs. The statute also permits an individual upon whom the Department imposes a civil money penalty or assessment to be suspended from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Until enactment of the civil money penalties legislation, the federal government had to rely upon litigation under the False Claims Act or criminal proceedings in order to compel restitution of funds falsely or improperly claimed under HHS health care financing programs.
Studies on the growth requirements of Entamoeba histolytica; the ingestion of altered bacterial structures by E. histolytica in the Shaffer-Frye medium.

J. G. Shaffer,R. Schuler,I. Key

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4269/AJTMH.1958.7.302

1958-05-01

American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

Abstract:
Medicaid program; imposition of cost sharing charges under Medicaid--Health Care Financing Administration. Final rule with comment period

1983-02-08

Abstract:This final rule revises regulations concerning imposition of cost sharing amounts on Medicaid recipients. Section 131 of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-248) amended the Medicaid cost sharing requirements. This final rule revises the Medicaid regulations to remove the prohibition on States from imposing deductibles, coinsurance or copayments on categorically or medically needy individuals with certain exceptions. Under the law, States are precluded from imposing such charges with respect to services furnished to individuals under 18, services furnished to pregnant women, if the services relate to the pregnancy, or to any condition which may complicate the pregnancy, and services furnished to certain institutionalized patients who are required to spend all of their income for medical care costs except for a personal needs allowance. The law also prohibits imposition of deductions, cost sharing or similar charges on emergency services, and family planning services and supplies to any individual. Finally, services furnished by a health maintenance organization (HMO) to a categorically needy individual who is enrolled in the HMO are also exempt from cost sharing. States may also exempt medically needy HMO enrolees if they desire. The law also establishes a waiver authority under which cost-sharing amounts may be increased for nonemergency services in hospital emergency rooms. This rule reflects these changes in the law.
Medicare program: changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2009 rates; payments for graduate medical education in certain emergency situations; changes to disclosure of physician ownership in hospitals and physician self-referral rules; updates to the long-term care prospective payment system; updates to certain IPPS-excluded hospitals; and collection of information regarding financial relationships between hospitals. Final rules

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS

2008-08-19

Abstract:We are revising the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital related costs to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems, and to implement certain provisions made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, the Medicare Improvements and Extension Act, Division B, Title I of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, the TMA, Abstinence Education, and QI Programs Extension Act of 2007, and the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. In addition, in the Addendum to this final rule, we describe the changes to the amounts and factors used to determine the rates for Medicare hospital inpatient services for operating costs and capital-related costs. These changes are generally applicable to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2008. We also are setting forth the update to the rate-of-increase limits for certain hospitals and hospital units excluded from the IPPS that are paid on a reasonable cost basis subject to these limits. The updated rate-of-increase limits are effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2008. In addition to the changes for hospitals paid under the IPPS, this document contains revisions to the patient classifications and relative weights used under the long-term care hospital prospective payment system (LTCH PPS). This document also contains policy changes relating to the requirements for furnishing hospital emergency services under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA). In this document, we are responding to public comments and finalizing the policies contained in two interim final rules relating to payments for Medicare graduate medical education to affiliated teaching hospitals in certain emergency situations. We are revising the regulatory requirements relating to disclosure to patients of physician ownership or investment interests in hospitals and responding to public comments on a collection of information regarding financial relationships between hospitals and physicians. In addition, we are responding to public comments on proposals made in two separate rulemakings related to policies on physician self-referrals and finalizing these policies.
Medicare program; hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and Fiscal Year 2014 rates; quality reporting requirements for specific providers; hospital conditions of participation; payment policies related to patient status. Final rules

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS

2013-08-19

Abstract:We are revising the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs of acute care hospitals to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems. Some of the changes implement certain statutory provisions contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively known as the Affordable Care Act) and other legislation. These changes will be applicable to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2013, unless otherwise specified in this final rule. We also are updating the rate-of-increase limits for certain hospitals excluded from the IPPS that are paid on a reasonable cost basis subject to these limits. The updated rate-of-increase limits will be effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2013. We also are updating the payment policies and the annual payment rates for the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) and implementing certain statutory changes that were applied to the LTCH PPS by the Affordable Care Act. Generally, these updates and statutory changes will be applicable to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2013, unless otherwise specified in this final rule. In addition, we are making a number of changes relating to direct graduate medical education (GME) and indirect medical education (IME) payments. We are establishing new requirements or have revised requirements for quality reporting by specific providers (acute care hospitals, PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, LTCHs, and inpatient psychiatric facilities (IPFs)) that are participating in Medicare. We are updating policies relating to the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. In addition, we are revising the conditions of participation (CoPs) for hospitals relating to the administration of vaccines by nursing staff as well as the CoPs for critical access hospitals relating to the provision of acute care inpatient services. We are finalizing proposals issued in two separate proposed rules that included payment policies related to patient status: payment of Medicare Part B inpatient services; and admission and medical review criteria for payment of hospital inpatient services under Medicare Part A.
Hanlester Laboratories decision: how is it affected by new sanctions and penalties regulations?

P Hooper,W B Tully,L J Goldberg

Abstract:The following excerpts from the briefs recently submitted to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Stephen Kessel in the Hanlester Laboratories administrative proceeding, deal with the applicability of a January 29, 1992 final rule on fraud and abuse sanctions and civil money penalties (57 Fed. Reg. 3,298 (January 29, 1992) to the case. Counsel for Hanlester Laboratories, Patric Hooper and W. Bradley Tully of Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc. in Los Angeles, argue that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG-HHS) is trying to change the rules "well after the game has been played," and that this "is obviously being done for the sole purpose of negating the rights" of the Hanlester respondents. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC), in a brief prepared by OGC attorney Larry J. Goldberg, contends that ALJ Kessel "must apply these regulations in rendering his decision," arguing that the "regulations at issue do not even involve a change in policy, but merely a clarification." The Hanlester case (The Inspector General v. Hanlester Network et al., No. C-448 (Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division) was remanded by the Departmental Appeals Board to ALJ Kessel on September 18, 1991. It is the first case to consider the application of the antikickback statute to a joint venture, and is the first HHS civil exclusion case to be brought as the result of allegations of violations of the antikickback statute (see HealthSpan, November 1991, p. 8).
Multiple requirements for Hes 1 during early eye formation.

Hae-Young Lee,E. Wroblewski,Gary T. Philips,Carrie N Stair,K. Conley,Meredith A. Reedy,G. Mastick,N. Brown

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.YDBIO.2005.06.010

IF: 3.148

2005-08-15

Developmental Biology

Abstract:
Compact hardware implementation of SHA-3 finalist blake on FPGA

M. Arsalan,Muhammad Ata-ur-Rehman,N. Mehmood,A. Aziz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICET.2013.6743547

2013-12-01

Abstract:NIST announced a public competition on Nov. 2, 2007 to develop a new cryptographic hash algorithm. Blake is one of the candidate among five finalist selected in round three of this competition. One of the major evaluation criteria of the candidate algorithm is efficient hardware implementation. In this paper compact area-efficient design of Blake-256 algorithm is implemented on FPGA. Horizontal Folding and pipelining technique is used in which two Half-G functions are used to execute overall round function. Distributed Block Memory is used for storing permutation table values. Full autonomous design is implemented on Virtex 5 LX-50T FPGA. The Post Place and Route results shows area utilization of 415 Slices with the maximum achieved frequency of 196 MHz and throughput of the design is calculated as 717 Mbps. Throughput per Area of our design is 1.72 which shows the significant improvement in results from all previous reported work.
3D shape-based face representation and feature extraction for face recognition

B. Gökberk,M. Irfanoglu,L. Akarun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imavis.2006.02.009

IF: 3.86

2006-08-01

Image and Vision Computing

Abstract:
Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) for FY 2016, SNF Value-Based Purchasing Program, SNF Quality Reporting Program, and Staffing Data Collection. Final Rule

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS

2015-08-04

Abstract:This final rule updates the payment rates used under the prospective payment system (PPS) for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for fiscal year (FY) 2016. In addition, it specifies a SNF all-cause all-condition hospital readmission measure, as well as adopts that measure for a new SNF Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program, and includes a discussion of SNF VBP Program policies we are considering for future rulemaking to promote higher quality and more efficient health care for Medicare beneficiaries. Additionally, this final rule will implement a new quality reporting program for SNFs as specified in the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (IMPACT Act). It also amends the requirements that a long-term care (LTC) facility must meet to qualify to participate as a skilled nursing facility (SNF) in the Medicare program, or a nursing facility (NF) in the Medicaid program, by establishing requirements that implement the provision in the Affordable Care Act regarding the submission of staffing information based on payroll data.
Complying with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Privacy standards

A W Shuren,K Livsey

Abstract:The Privacy Rule: Limits the use and disclosure of PHI to purposes of treatment, payment, or routine health care operations. Requires covered entities to provide advance notice to the public of its policy governing disclosure of PHI. Requires entities covered by the Standard to secure general client consent to use and to disclose PHI for treatment, payment, or routine health care operations and to obtain specific client authorization to use or to disclose PHI for all other purposes unless the disclosure is specifically permitted without consent or authorization (e.g., a covered entity may disclose PHI to a health care oversight agency such as the Office of the Inspector General without first obtaining client authorization). In certain situations, a covered entity need only obtain client agreement to disclose PHI which may be oral or inferred from the circumstances surrounding the disclosure. For example, a covered entity could disclose PHI to a relative caring for the individual who is the subject of the health information. Expects covered entities to take measures to protect PHI from both inadvertent and deliberate misuse and disclosure. Requires, except in certain circumstances, the amount of PHI disclosed on any occasion to be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose of the disclosure. Gives individuals more control of their health information by permitting them to review and amend health information pertaining to themselves and to demand an accounting of persons to whom their health information has been disclosed. Establishes terms under which a covered entity may disclose PHI to a business associate. Permits states to maintain state laws that are more stringent than the Privacy Rule. The statute provides for significant civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply with the Standards. Violations are punishable by fines as much as $250,000 and 10 years imprisonment. The HHS, Office of Civil Rights is charged with enforcing the Standards. The HHS is expected to issue a single Enforcement Rule applicable to all three of the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Standards. Many worksite records will not be protected under the HIPAA Privacy Rule because employers are not covered entities and few occupational health professionals meet the criteria of being considered a covered entity. Nevertheless, occupational health professionals need to be knowledgeable about the application of HIPAA in the occupational health care setting. Furthermore, given that the Rule does not preempt state privacy laws that are more stringent than the Standards, occupational health professionals should monitor legislative activity related to privacy in the states in which they practice. To date, Oregon, Texas, and New Jersey have broadened HIPAA's definitions to create more covered entities and services.
Cerebral venous thrombosis in ulcerative colitis.

I. Borda,Robert F. Southern,W. Brown

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(73)80099-X

IF: 29.4

Gastroenterology

Abstract:
Inhibitory actions of diltiazem and its derivative, TA3090 on the Ba-current recorded from smooth muscle cells of the rabbit mesenteric artery

Z. Xiong,T. Sakai,Y. Inoue,K. Kitamura,H. Kuriyama

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00180664

1990-04-01

Abstract:
Evaluating the Effect of Financial Penalty on Hospital-Acquired Infections

Dan M Wood,Brad Beauvais,Rodney X Sturdivant,Forest S Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S469424

2024-09-07

Abstract:Purpose: This study explores the effects of CMS reimbursement financial penalties from the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) on hospital-acquired infections (HAI) in hospitals across the United States. Methods: Hospital-level data for 2896 hospitals in the United States were evaluated using multiple linear regression models with random effects analysis through a difference-in-differences study design to examine HAIs under the HACRP between hospitals that were financially penalized or not from calendar years 2013 to 2020. Results: This study showed significant differences from the pre-program Total HAC scores to the most recent reviewed year, validating the efficacy of the HACRP, and showing a reduction of overall HAIs over the years evaluated in the study. The multiple linear regression model with random effects analysis produced a significant (p < 0.001) interaction term between hospitals expected to be penalized in 2013 and each year evaluated in the study (-0.412 estimate) confirming decreases in HAI scores, and overall decreases in HAIs across the years of the study. Notably, 98% of hospitals in the worst-performing, expected to be financially penalized quartile from 2013, were found to have decreased their HAIs in their facilities, while only 38.8% of hospital in the performing, non-penalized quartiles showed decreases in HAIs across their facilities, by 2020. Conclusion: Our research indicates that implementing financial disincentives through reimbursement reductions could potentially decrease the incidence of HAIs. Our study further suggests that incorporating financial penalties and incentives for HAIs annually across all hospitals may lead to significant reductions in HAIs throughout the US healthcare system.
Association of the New Peer Group–Stratified Method With the Reclassification of Penalty Status in the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program

Cian P. McCarthy,Muthiah Vaduganathan,Kershaw V. Patel,Hussain S. Lalani,Colby Ayers,Deepak L. Bhatt,James L. Januzzi,James A. de Lemos,Clyde Yancy,Gregg C. Fonarow,Ambarish Pandey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2987

2019-04-26

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance: Since the introduction of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), readmission penalties have been applied disproportionately to institutions that serve low-income populations. To address this concern, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid introduced a new, stratified payment adjustment method in fiscal year (FY; October 1 to September 30) 2019.Objective: To determine whether the introduction of a new, stratified payment adjustment method was associated with an alteration in the distribution of penalties among hospitals included in the HRRP.Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, US hospitals included in the HRRP for FY 2018 and FY 2019 were identified. Penalty status of participating hospitals for FY 2019 was determined based on nonstratified HRRP methods and the new, stratified payment adjustment method. Hospitals caring for the highest proportion of patients enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid based on quintile were assigned to the low-socioeconomic status (SES) group.Exposures: Nonstratified and stratified Centers for Medicare & Medicaid payment adjustment methods.Main Outcomes and Measures: Net reclassification of penalties among all hospitals and hospitals in the low-SES group, in states participating in Medicaid expansion, and for 4 targeted medical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia).Results: Penalty status by both payment adjustment methods (nonstratified and stratified) was available for 3173 hospitals. For FY 2019, the new, stratified payment method was associated with penalties for 75.04% of hospitals (2381 of 3173), while the old, nonstratified method was associated with penalties for 79.07% (2509 hospitals), resulting in a net down-classification in penalty status for all hospitals by 4.03 percentage points (95% CI, 2.95-5.11; P < .001). For the 634 low-SES hospitals in the sample, the new method was associated with penalties for 77.60% of hospitals (492 of 634), while the old method was associated with penalties for 91.64% (581 hospitals), resulting in a net down-classification in penalty status of 14.04 percentage points (95% CI, 11.18-16.90; P < .001). Among hospitals that were not low SES (quintiles 1-4), the new payment method was associated with a small decrease in penalty status (1928 vs 1889; net down-classification, 1.54 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.38-2.69; P = .01). Among target medical conditions, the greatest reduction in penalties was observed among cardiovascular conditions (net down-classification, 6.18 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.96-7.39; P < .001).Conclusions and Relevance: The new, stratified payment adjustment method for the HRRP was associated with a reduction in penalties across hospitals included in the program; the greatest reductions were observed among hospitals in the low-SES group, lessening but not eliminating the previously unbalanced penalty burden carried by these hospitals. Additional public policy research efforts are needed to achieve equitable payment adjustment models for all hospitals.

medicine, general & internal
Self-reporting Medicare and Medicaid overpayments

F Robinson

Abstract:Refunding a significant overpayment to the Medicare or Medicaid program can subject a healthcare organization to government scrutiny that can consume the time and energies of key staff members, risk potential litigation by shareholders, and possibly lead to severe sanctions. Delaying a refund, however, may precipitate even more costly consequences, such as triple damages and heavy monetary penalties. The government has stepped up its efforts to detect and punish fraud and abuse; therefore, providers should refund overpayments promptly. Failure to do so may constitute a crime, increase the likelihood of a whistleblower exposing the offense, or result in an increase in the amount of penalties imposed. Healthcare organizations can prevent overpayment abuses from occurring by following recommended procedures for making refunds, addressing underlying billing problems, and ensuring that senior management oversees the entire claims payment process.
Hospital Penalization in the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program

Jose A. Serpa,Gretchen Gemeinhardt,Cesar A. Arias,Robert O. Morgan,Heidi Russell,Hongyu Miao,Cecilia M. Ganduglia Cazaban

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.56196

2024-02-17

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This cross-sectional study assesses hospital characteristics associated with Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program penalization and penalization reversal after the introduction of recent program methodology changes among acute care hospitals.

medicine, general & internal
Recent hospital charity care controversies highlight ambiguities and outdated features of government regulations

Charles MacKelvie,Michael Apolskis,James J Unland

Abstract:For years the hospital industry has been embroiled in controversies involving pricing, charity care, and collection practices. Unfortunately, Medicare regulations and policies governing hospital charge-setting and collection practices have not helped bring much clarity to the situation, nor has related CMS and OIG guidance. Coordinated effort by hospitals and regulatory bodies can help clarify unclear government regulation of charity care, pricing, and collections and end potentially destructive controversies that sap valuable time, energy, and resources from efforts addressing much graver long-term threats to hospital viability.
Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) 2002-15: Review of Office of Inspector General Patient Dumping Settlements

Nadia Zuabi,Larry D. Weiss,Mark I. Langdorf,Larry Weiss,Mark Langdorf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2016.3.29705

2016-05-27

Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986 was enacted to prevent hospitals from "dumping" or refusing service to patients for financial reasons. The statute prohibits discrimination of emergency department (ED) patients for any reason. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services enforces the statute. The objective of this study is to determine the scope, cost, frequency and most common allegations leading to monetary settlement against hospitals and physicians for patient dumping.METHODS: Review of OIG investigation archives in May 2015, including cases settled from 2002-2015 ( https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/enforcement/cmp/patient_dumping.asp ).RESULTS: There were 192 settlements (14 per year average for 4000+ hospitals in the USA). Fines against hospitals and physicians totaled $6,357,000 (averages $33,435 and $25,625 respectively); 184/192 (95.8%, $6,152,000) settlements were against hospitals and eight against physicians ($205,000). Most common settlements were for failing to screen 144/192 (75%) and stabilize 82/192 (42.7%) for emergency medical conditions (EMC). There were 22 (11.5%) cases of inappropriate transfer and 22 (11.5%) more where the hospital failed to transfer. Hospitals failed to accept an appropriate transfer in 25 (13.0%) cases. Patients were turned away from hospitals for insurance/financial status in 30 (15.6%) cases. There were 13 (6.8%) violations for patients in active labor. In 12 (6.3%) cases, the on-call physician refused to see the patient, and in 28 (14.6%) cases the patient was inappropriately discharged. Although loss of Medicare/Medicaid funding is an additional possible penalty, there were no disclosures of exclusion of hospitals from federal funding. There were 6,035 CMS investigations during this time period, with 2,436 found to have merit as EMTALA violations (40.4%). However, only 192/6,035 (3.2%) actually resulted in OIG settlements. The proportion of CMS-certified EMTALA violations that resulted in OIG settlements was 7.9% (192/2,436).CONCLUSION: Of 192 hospital and physician settlements with the OIG from 2002-15, most were for failing to provide screening (75%) and stabilization (42%) to patients with EMCs. The reason for patient "dumping" was due to insurance or financial status in 15.6% of settlements. The vast majority of penalties were to hospitals (95% of cases and 97% of payments). Forty percent of investigations found EMTALA violations, but only 3% of investigations triggered fines.

emergency medicine

An Unexpected Appearance of the Catalan Numbers: 10905

Medicare and state health care programs: fraud and abuse; clarification of the initial OIG safe harbor provisions and establishment of additional safe harbor provisions under the anti-kickback statute. Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS. Final rule

Medicare, Medicaid, and Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant programs; civil money penalties and assessments for false or improper claims--Department of Health and Human Services. Notice of proposed rulemaking

Studies on the growth requirements of Entamoeba histolytica; the ingestion of altered bacterial structures by E. histolytica in the Shaffer-Frye medium.

Medicaid program; imposition of cost sharing charges under Medicaid--Health Care Financing Administration. Final rule with comment period

Hanlester Laboratories decision: how is it affected by new sanctions and penalties regulations?

Multiple requirements for Hes 1 during early eye formation.

Compact hardware implementation of SHA-3 finalist blake on FPGA

3D shape-based face representation and feature extraction for face recognition

Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) for FY 2016, SNF Value-Based Purchasing Program, SNF Quality Reporting Program, and Staffing Data Collection. Final Rule

Complying with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Privacy standards

Cerebral venous thrombosis in ulcerative colitis.

Inhibitory actions of diltiazem and its derivative, TA3090 on the Ba-current recorded from smooth muscle cells of the rabbit mesenteric artery

Evaluating the Effect of Financial Penalty on Hospital-Acquired Infections

Association of the New Peer Group–Stratified Method With the Reclassification of Penalty Status in the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program

Self-reporting Medicare and Medicaid overpayments

Hospital Penalization in the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program

Recent hospital charity care controversies highlight ambiguities and outdated features of government regulations

Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) 2002-15: Review of Office of Inspector General Patient Dumping Settlements