The influence of the rulings of the Constitutional Court on the development of health law in Lithuania

This article highlights some recent developments in the constitutional doctrine of the right to health care in Lithuania, and more in particular the impact of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania on the development of health law. The right to health care, enshrined in the Constitution, is both an obligation of the state and an individual right. The Constitutional Court has developed a doctrine of the right to health care, as well a doctrine of certain other constitutional social rights, which is based on the understanding of the close interrelation between the different constitutional rights, the principle of indivisibility and equal importance of these rights, and the presumption of justiciability of social rights. The analysis is based on the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. Two cases on the disputes of the legal regulation concerning the pharmaceutical activities are presented in more detail.     

National standard health care provider identifier--HCFA. Proposed rule

This rule proposes a standard for a national health care provider identifier and requirements concerning its use by health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers. The health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers would use the identifier, among other uses, in connection with certain electronic transactions. The use of this identifier would improve the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and other Federal health programs and private health programs, and the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care industry in general, by simplifying the administration of the system and enabling the efficient electronic transmission of certain health information. It would implement some of the requirements of the Administrative Simplification subtitle of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.     

The impact of the recent Supreme Court rulings in Pegram and Rush Prudential on state regulation of managed care organizations

Over the past two decades, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) has shielded managed care organizations (MCOs) from liability for negligent treatment or coverage decisions. This Article examines the Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of ERISA preemption, and assesses the impact of these recent decisions on state regulation of MCOs. The author concludes that recent decisions in Pegram v. Herdrich and Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran have broadened the states' power to regulate MCOs and enhance the ability of injured plaintiffs to sue such organizations under state tort law.     

Recent Supreme Court of Canada rulings on criminal defendants' right to counsel

The Supreme Court of Canada recently issued a trilogy of decisions pertaining to suspects' right to legal representation. These rulings further a major difference between the US and Canadian law: Canadian criminal suspects have far less access to legal counsel than suspects in the USA. This paper summarizes these decisions and draws comparisons between Canadian and the US criminal procedure with respect to a suspect's rights to legal representation. We present preliminary data on Canadian citizens' misunderstanding of criminal suspects' right to counsel and also Canadian legal professionals' opinions about the right to counsel. We recommend empirical investigation of the hypothesis that Canadian suspects are more likely than the US suspects to make false confessions.     

The HIV-infected health care provider. Doe v. Attorney General of the United States

Doe demonstrates that once an employer enters into a relationship with an individual and thereafter determines that he or she may be disabled, the employer has the right to ask the individual questions about the possible disability when those questions are relevant to assessing his or her qualifications for continuing on the job. In fact, once a health care provider is on notice that an employee's or physician's disability may render the employee or physician no longer qualified, thereby potentially endangering patients, the provider is required to determine whether the person is qualified for the job. In these sensitive matters, employers must draw a fine line between unreasonably following up on every rumor on the one hand, and on the other hand investigating reliable information when there may indeed be a direct threat to patients.     

Regulation for the enforcement of federal health care provider conscience protection laws. Final rule

The Department of Health and Human Services issues this final rule which provides that enforcement of the federal statutory health care provider conscience protections will be handled by the Department's Office for Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Department's funding components. This Final Rule rescinds, in part, and revises, the December 19, 2008 Final Rule entitled "Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law" (the "2008 Final Rule"). Neither the 2008 final rule, nor this final rule, alters the statutory protections for individuals and health care entities under the federal health care provider conscience protection statutes, including the Church Amendments, Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act, and the Weldon Amendment. These federal statutory health care provider conscience protections remain in effect.     

Managed care liability and the capitated provider

While there have been no reported cases as yet on the subject of ERISA preemption of claims arising from utilization review decisions by providers, it will unquestionably be a significant issue facing providers that participate in capitated arrangements. If preemption is determined not to be available, providers will be exposed to risks from which health plans are currently shielded. Providers conducting utilization review should be following this issue as it develops, but should also be obtaining insurance for this risk to the extent it is available (e.g., it will not be available for punitive damages). Providers should also consider negotiating provisions in their contracts with health plans to the effect that any utilization review conducted by the provider is on behalf of the health plan and that the provider's utilization review activities will be covered under the health plan's liability insurance.