Monitoring quality in a federal state with shared powers in healthcare: the case of Belgium

The Belgian healthcare system consists of a complex of more or less autonomous groups of healthcare providers. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the fundamental right to qualitative healthcare is secured through the services they provide. In Belgium, the regulatory powers in healthcare are divided between the federal state and the three communities. Both levels, within their area of competence, monitor the quality of healthcare services. Unique to the Belgian healthcare system is that the government that providers are accountable to is not always the same as the government that is competent to set the criteria. The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the main mechanisms that are used by the federal government and the government of the Flemish community to monitor healthcare quality in hospitals. The Flemish community is Belgian's largest community (6.2 million inhabitants). The overview is followed by a critical analysis of the dual system of quality monitoring.     

Principles of state health reform: many states not willing to wait for federal reform

Despite the simplicity of the basic objectives of health care reform-- greater access at manageable cost, these goals have not yet been achieved at either the federal or state level. One explanation may be that the American people are not willing to make the sacrifices that are probably necessary to achieve universal access to health care: increased taxes or redirection of governmental expenditures, limitation of choice in providers, and perhaps some form of rationing (which in fact already exists, by limiting access of the uninsured and some of the poor). What, then, are the prospects for meaningful national health care reform in the near future? While the answer to this question remains unclear, there is no doubt that providers across the country are likely to face an unprecedented array of state health care initiatives over the next few years, whether or not federal legislation is enacted. To prepare for this upcoming legislative activity, providers must remain aware of state legislative activity as it evolves.     

Blending reform of tort liability and health insurance: a necessary mix

The thesis of this Article is that making more health insurance benefits available to more people, far from lessening injury victims' proclivity to sue in tort (as conventional wisdom argues), will increase such suits. Thus, it is necessary to accompany any increases in health care coverage with the type of tort reform proposed herein. This reform would allow parties to opt out of the cumbersome and expensive tort claim process with its compensation of noneconomic losses by substituting quicker and surer compensation of any unmet economic losses.     

Individual market health insurance reform: portability from group to individual coverage: federal rules for access in the individual market; state alternative mechanisms to federal rules--HHS. Interim final rule with comment period

This interim final rule with comment period implements section 111 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which sets forth Federal requirements designed to improve access to the individual health insurance market. Certain "eligible individuals" who lose group health insurance coverage are assured availability of coverage in the individual market, on a guaranteed issues basis, without preexisting condition exclusions. In addition, all individual health insurance coverage must be guaranteed renewable. This rule also sets forth procedures that apply to States that choose to implement a mechanism under State law, as an alternative to the Federal requirements, with respect to guaranteed availability for eligible individuals. It also sets forth the rules that apply if a State does not substantially enforce the statutory requirements.     

Health insurance reform: security standards. Final rule

This final rule adopts standards for the security of electronic protected health information to be implemented by health plans, health care clearinghouses, and certain health care providers. The use of the security standards will 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 establishing a level of protection for certain electronic health information. This final rule implements some of the requirements of the Administrative Simplification subtitle of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).     

Interim rules for health insurance portability for group health plans and individual market health insurance reform: portability from group to individual coverage; and federal rules for access in the individual market; state alternative mechanisms to federal rules--HCFA. Interim rule; correction

Federal Register documents 97-8217 and 97-8275 in this issue include provisions that implement the health insurance portability, availability, and renewability provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Those documents contain a technical error in amendments because of differing effective dates. The rule with the earlier effective date establishes a new part in a subchapter established by the rule with the latter date. This document corrects the error.     

Individual market health insurance reform: portability from group to individual coverage; federal rules for access in the individual market; state alternative mechanism to federal rules; correction--HCFA. Interim final rule; correction

This document corrects an interim rule and a previous correction to the interim rule published in the Federal Register of April 8, 1997 that implement the health insurance portability, availability, and renewability provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 in the individual health insurance market.     

Neither aider nor abettor be: attorneys become prosecutorial targets for federal healthcare crimes

Attorneys representing healthcare entities are not immune to federal criminal prosecution for the assistance that they give their clients. This Article focuses on potential attorney liability for aiding and abetting a client's violation of law. The author examines the securities, tax, and white-collar crime fields for guidance regarding the interpretation and application of the federal aiding and abetting statute to attorneys practicing in the health law field. Based on these analogous areas, and upon the federal criminal statutes applicable in the healthcare field, he recommends steps that can be taken to minimize the possibility of aiding and abetting liability. In addition, he recommends that the courts require a prosecutorial showing of both actual knowledge of wrong-doing and wrongful intent before imposing aider and abettor liability upon health law practitioners.     

Improving federal technology commercialization: Some recommendations from a field study

This study identified three distinct roles of the federal technology-transfer process in the Huntsville, Alabama region: sponsors, developers, and adopters. The basic structure of transfer barriers and measures during the prospecting and developing of the federal technology-transfer process is also discussed. Sponsors attributed transfer problems to adopters' lack of awareness, while developers cited long development and payback times. Adopters admitted their lack of transfer expertise and their resistance to technologies with long paybacks. None of the role-players were measuring technology transfer very well. While sponsors agreed with adopters that long-term outcome measures were important, sponsors relied on measures of input effort and intermediate results. Developers with the most transfer experience reported the lowest use of measures. Recommendations are made for each role to help improve federal technology transfer.     

Health insurance reform: standards for electronic transactions--HCFA. Proposed rule

This rule proposes standards for eight electronic transactions and for code sets to be used in those transactions. It also proposes requirements concerning the use of these standards by health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers. The use of these standard transactions and code sets 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 Administrative Simplification subtitle of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.     

Health insurance reform: national standard employer identifier--HCFA. Proposed rule

This rule proposes a standard for a national employer 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.