Title II of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act makes civil and administrative sanctions for fraud harsher
Article Abstract:
The enforcement provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 took effect on Jan 1, 1997 and creates five new health care crimes, but the law's funding mechanisms will probably lead to more prosecution of health care fraud than the addition of new statutes. The law increases civil and administrative sanctions for health care fraud as well as expanding the possible application of discretionary and mandatory exclusion sanctions. This increase in sanctions will force the implementation or upgrading by most health care organizations of health care fraud compliance programs.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Measuring the need for early disclosure
Article Abstract:
A key issue for a corporate compliance program is whether to disclose executives' or subordinates' legal violations and when to do so. The government has emphasized the importance of disclosure and cooperating with authorities throughout its interest in corporate compliance, also promising lenient treatment when this cooperation takes place. The Organizational Sentencing Guidelines, a part of the US Sentencing Guidelines enacted in 1991, are even stricter about the need for disclosure and cooperation, requiring a reporting system as part of a corporate compliance program.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Constitutional rights and corporate disclosure obligations clash when an officer or director asserts Fifth Amendment privileges
Article Abstract:
The SEC, in its report on the Cooper Companies affair, claims that a director who invokes a Fifth Amendment privilege not to speak during an SEC investigation must disclose this fact to investors. This is an unfair position that essentially punishes directors for invoking a constitutional right. The SEC did not give specific examples of when such information must be disclosed, and it certainly can not apply to every situation in which a director takes the Fifth. Clarification is needed.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Elementary, my dear Watson; establishing sound administrative systems is essential. Home alone; overcome isolation by getting help when you need it
- Abstracts: New Jersey Franchise Practices Act survives constitutional challenge. Task force recommends self-regulation of franchising in Australia
- Abstracts: Tight budget squeezes courts; Judicial Conference says money could run out for civil juries, indigent defense
- Abstracts: Economic theory and inter/intrabrand competition: Sylvania's 'balancing' test. Competition: the moral justification for capitalism
- Abstracts: Her polish has helped Apple regain its shine. This DA's done time; protester and heir to a political dynasty suits San Francisco to a 'T'