关于法定优先购买权的几个问题

本文对优先购买权的基本问题进行了分析和论证。首先区分了优先购买权行使的常态和异态,以此对优先购买权的涵义进行了界定;其次将优先购买权定性为形成权,进而指出经过公示的优先购买权具有排斥后来的与该项权利内容相同的权利变动的效力;最后对出卖人与第三人订立的买卖合同的效力进行了评判。     

Medicaid program; Community First Choice option. Final rule

This final rule implements section 2401 of the Affordable Care Act, which establishes a new State option to provide home and community-based attendant services and supports. These services and supports are known as Community First Choice (CFC). While this final rule sets forth the requirements for implementation of CFC, we are not finalizing the section concerning the CFC setting.     

TBOR2 compliance plans: from rebuttable presumption to enforcement

This Article analyzes the implications and strategies of incorporating the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 ("TBOR2") into tax-exempt healthcare organizations' compliance plans. Beginning with a brief overview of TBOR2, the author examines the presumption of fair market value, how such organizations establish safe harbors, the current Internal Revenue Service (IRS or Service) position regarding enforcement of TBOR2, and the lurking potential for "whistleblowers" to start auditory procedures with an eye toward IRS bounties. Mr. Griffith concludes that the best advice for exempt organizations is to follow the rebuttable presumption procedure for all transactions involving potential disqualified persons, including staff and employed physicians, and seek to fit within the safe harbors for the less routine and larger of those transactions.     

Consumer-defined health plans: emerging challenges from tort and contract

The emergence of Consumer-Defined Health Plans with large deductibles means that many people will be financially responsible for all or most of their healthcare during any given year. This increasing exposure to costs will bring important changes in the physician-patient relationship, as patients seek more information about the care their physicians propose. Litigation can be anticipated in two areas. First, in tort law, informed consent claims may allege that providers failed to disclose the likely costs and medical importance of their care. Second, in contract law, patients may challenge the reasonableness of the prices they are charged. This Article explores potential causes of action in both areas. Ultimately, increasing transparency of pricing may lend greater rationality not only to pricing structures but also, it is to be hoped, to healthcare itself, as cost-worthiness of care assumes higher priority in medical decisionmaking.     

Beyond competition: the normative implications of consumer-driven health plans

The Federal Trade Commission/Department of Justice 2004 report Improving Health Care: A Dose of Competition appeals to efficiency arguments in promoting a wide range of health care market reforms. But the market-based reforms discussed in Improving Health Care are not simply neutral with regard to equity in access to services; they are likely to have substantial and inequitable distributional effects. We use the case of consumer-driven health plans (CDHPs), the pillar of the Bush administration's private-sector health reform efforts, to illustrate the limitations of viewing health policy reform through the lens of Improving Health Care. We conclude that the speculative efficiency gains from CDHPs need to be balanced against well-documented equity concerns within a normative framework. Moreover, other important ethical issues arise with regard to the risks imposed on the population by the introduction of policies that are based on a faith in markets rather than empirical evidence.