Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Partnership Practice”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 883 records · Page 49Linked to original sources
PubMed1996

Partner risk: the hidden threat of capitated provider networks.

As provider networks align risk-sharing incentives, they must avoid partner risks that could pose a threat to the network. Partner risk results when actions taken by one or more partners in a network threaten to adversely affect other partners in the network. Such risk can arise from the way partners manage cost drivers under capitation or through passing risk to one another.

Capitation Fee↗
PubMed1992

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

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).

Fees and Charges↗
PubMed1984

Hospital safeguards capital program through private sector partnership.

As access to capital tightens, more hospitals are exploring the benefits of partnerships with private companies. A California hospital, burdened by the long-term debt it incurred for a medical office building, worked together with its medical staff and an outside real estate developer. By selling the building to the developer, not only was the hospital able to finance a much-needed expansion and reconstruction project, but the hospital's medical staff had an opportunity to become limited partners in the ownership of the building.

California↗