Search for: "Physician Review Services Inc"
Results 141 - 160
of 897
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Sep 2020, 11:46 am
Unlike most relationships where a physician has been engaged to serve as Medical Director, the physician in this case was paid only a nominal salary. [read post]
3 Sep 2020, 3:34 pm
Borello & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Aug 2020, 10:26 am
(DUSA), a subsidiary of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 9:05 pm
Department of Health and Human Services. [read post]
12 Aug 2020, 5:56 am
BioTelemetry Inc. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 11:07 am
Oklahoma Center for Orthopaedic and Multi-Specialty Surgery (OCOM), a specialty hospital affiliated with Tenet Healthcare in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, its part-owner and management company, USP OKC, Inc. and USP OKC Manager, Inc. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 8:48 am
The CIAs require, among other things, that OCOM and SOS each maintain a compliance program and hire an Independent Review Organization to review arrangements entered into by or on behalf of their respective entities. [read post]
6 Jul 2020, 9:44 am
The organizations complaining about Anderson, Markowitz, and Kanarek as peer reviewers correctly point out that these physicians are advocates and highly compensated expert witnesses for the asbestos lawsuit industry. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 10:43 am
Advantage Medical Transport, Inc., adv. [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 6:30 am
©2020 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. [read post]
17 Jun 2020, 8:00 am
After reviewing the MRI, Dr. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 5:42 pm
The federal agency primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of HIPAA, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) regulatory guidance and enforcement history clearly communicates OCR’s view that covered entities or business associates violate HIPAA by disclosing protected health information to the media or other third parties without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from the subject of the information… [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 2:18 pm
Thus, Judge Anderson intensely focuses upon the following Capital One/Mandiant engagement timeline: November 30, 2015: Capital One enters into a master services agreement (“MSA”) with FireEye, Inc. and Mandiant, and thereafter enters into periodic statements of work (“SOW”) and purchase orders with Mandiant pursuant to the MSA. [read post]
11 Jun 2020, 4:26 pm
In addition, the proposed regulations also invite comments about whether to expand the definition of a direct primary care arrangement to include a contract between an individual and a nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, or physician assistant (as those terms are defined in section 1861(aa)(5) of the SSA) or other non-physician practitioner who provides primary care services under the contract and on how to define primary care services provided by a… [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 1:17 am
AMA Provision H-265.993, concerning “Peer Review of Medical Expert Witness Testimony,” states that:[15] “AMA policy is that: (1) the giving of medico-legal testimony by a physician expert witness be considered the practice of medicine, and (2) all medico-legal expert witness testimony given by a physician should be subject to peer review. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 1:07 pm
This article reviews the billing of Medicaid after-hours claims in more detail and discusses the types of deficiencies that have been noted by regulators when auditing these services. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 1:07 pm
This article reviews the billing of Medicaid after-hours claims (CPT 99050, CPT 99051) in more detail and discusses the types of deficiencies that have been noted by regulators when auditing these services. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 10:35 am
The physicians conducted radiologic and pulmonary function examinations, and submitted requests to Medicare for reimbursement of inflated costs for these services [read post]
7 May 2020, 9:05 pm
FLASHBACK FRIDAY In a 2019 essay for The Regulatory Review, Alexander Kondo of the U.S. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 1:26 pm
According to DOJ’s press release: Genova Diagnostics Inc., a clinical laboratory services company based in Asheville, North Carolina, has agreed to pay up to approximately $43 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act, including claims that it billed for medically unnecessary lab tests, the Department of Justice announced today [read post]
