Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

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.

Author: Curran, Paul J., Wallance, Gregory J.
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1997
Remedies, Medicare fraud, Insurance fraud

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


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.

Author: Curran, Paul J., Wallance, Gregory J.
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1993
Management, Practice, Corporations, Preventive law

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


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.

Author: Curran, Paul J., Wallance, Gregory J.
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
Analysis, Laws, regulations and rules, Corporate directors, Securities fraud, Disclosure (Securities law)

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States
Similar abstracts:
  • 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'
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.