The OSHA regulations applicable to the offices of medical professionals are aimed at creating a safe and healthy practice. Compliance creates a positive work environment and minimizes employee complaints. There are six OSHA general standards that apply to physician offices of all sizes and a seventh requirement that applies only to offices that offer X-ray services. We will discuss each in this article.
Continue Reading OSHA Requirements for Medical Professionals

President Bush signed the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 on July 29, 2005, describing the legislation as “a critical step towards our goals insuring top quality, patient-driven healthcare for all Americans.”
Continue Reading Patient Safety And Quality Improvement Act Of 2005

P4P is the newest healthcare reform theory. Many believe the theory developed wide-spread acceptance following the landmark report, To Err is Human, published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2000, followed by the IOM report, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System For the Twenty-First Century, issued in 2001. There is almost unanimous agreement that P4P, if implemented correctly, has great potential to improve patient care. The basic premise is to (1) define quality by some measurable standard, (2) provide reimbursement incentives which compensate improved quality and (3) assess performance and pay accordingly.
Continue Reading Pay For Performance (P4P)

In the December 2004 PRN, Highmark stated that concierge medical practices are “not compatible” with its network requirements. Highmark stated that Blue Cross Blue Shield will initiate termination of impacted provider contracts or a without cause basis upon learning of conversion to concierge practice models.

As of Monday, July 25, Medicare will only pay for physical therapy services provided in physician offices “incident to” the physician’s services if the physical therapy services are provided by “qualified personnel” as defined in a June 24 transmittal to Medicare contractors.
Continue Reading “Incident To” Rules Effective July 25, 2005

Highmark will pay for care by more than one physician for treatment of hospital or skilled nursing facility in patients when the physicians are treating two or more separate conditions or the severity of the single condition requires the services of two or more physicians. The medical records should:

– Document the primary physician’s request for the consult(s)
– Document the seriousness of the medical condition
Continue Reading Highmark Defines Concurrent Care Reimbursement Policies

In MurfreesboroMedical Clinic vs. Udom, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that restrictive covenants are not enforceable against physicians, unless specifically prescribed by law. In handing down this decision, the Court overturned an appellate court decision enforcing the restrictive covenant. Although restrictive covenants are otherwise enforceable in Tennessee, the Court found that interfering with patient

While CMS was announcing its EHR beta test, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Michael Leavitt, announced the composition of the American Health Information Community. Access the HHS Press Release here. The purpose of the Community is to advance President Bush’s HER project. Modern Healthcare reported in its September 19, 2005 edition that many

A headline in the Wall Street Journal recently read: “High Court Rules IRAs Untouchable.” This headline was prompted by a recent U.S. Supreme Court case (Rousey v Jacoway) which held that creditors may not execute on individual retirement accounts (IRAs) in a bankruptcy proceeding. This decision has been hailed as a huge victory for IRA owners.
Continue Reading Most IRA Accounts Protected From Creditors, Supreme Court Rules

The DHHS had issued guidance entitled “Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons.” Several individual physicians and professional associations sought to enjoin the Guidance, but a federal district court ruled that the Guidance had not cause sufficient damage or injury nor threatened future