Commentary on the Newly Implemented Amendment Ⅷ to the Criminal Law Concerning Children’s Rights in China

Amendment Viii to the Criminal Law of the PRC, which went into effect on May 1, 2011, is not only in line with the basic spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and relevant international human rights treaties, but also is related to the priority area of the Program for The Development of Chinese Children (2011- 2020). Thus, it helps to safeguard the rights of juveniles and strengthens criminal law protection of their rights and interests.     

HIPAA administrative simplification: National Plan and Provider Enumeration System Data Dissemination. Notice

This notice establishes the data that are available from the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES). In addition, this notice addresses who may have access to the data or may receive data from the system, the processes for requesting and receiving data, and the conditions under which data may be disclosed.     

Medicaid program; cost limit for providers operated by units of government and provisions to ensure the integrity of federal-state financial partnership. Final rule with comment period

This regulation clarifies that entities involved in the financing of the non-Federal share of Medicaid payments must be a unit of government; clarifies the documentation required to support a Medicaid certified public expenditure; limits Medicaid reimbursement for health care providers that are operated by units of government to an amount that does not exceed the health care provider's cost of providing services to Medicaid individuals; requires all health care providers to receive and retain the full amount of total computable payments for services furnished under the approved Medicaid State plan; and makes conforming changes to provisions governing the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to make the same requirements applicable, with the exception of the cost limit on reimbursement. The Medicaid cost limit provision of this regulation does not apply to: Stand-alone SCHIP program payments made to governmentally-operated health care providers; Indian Health Service (IHS) facilities and tribal 638 facilities that are paid at the all-inclusive IHS rate; Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (MCOs), Prepaid Inpatient Health Plans (PIHPs), and Prepaid Ambulatory Health Plans (PAHPs); Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Rural Health Clinics (RHCs). Moreover, disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments and payments authorized under Section 701(d) and Section 705 of the Benefits Improvement Protection Act of 2000 are not subject to the newly established Medicaid cost limit for governmentally-operated health care providers. Except as noted above, all Medicaid payments and SCHIP payments made under the authority of the State plan and under waiver and demonstration authorities, as well as associated State Medicaid and SCHIP financing arrangements, are subject to all provisions of this regulation. Finally, this regulation solicits comments from the public on issues related to the definition of the Unit of Government.     

Amendment to the interim final regulation for mental health parity. Amendment to interim final regulation

This document amends the interim final regulation that implements the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA) to conform the sunset date of the regulation to the sunset date of the statute under legislation passed on December 9, 2006.     

Mental health parity. Interim final amendment to regulation

This document contains an interim final amendment to modify the sunset date of interim final regulations under the Mental Health Parity Act (MHPA) to be consistent with legislation passed during the 109th Congress.     

Medicaid program; cost limit for providers operated by units of government and provisions to ensure the integrity of federal-state financial partnership. Final rule; implementation of court orders

This final rule amends Medicaid regulations to conform with the decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on May 23, 2008 in Alameda County Medical Center, et al. v. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., 559 F. Supp. 2d (2008) that vacated a final rule with comment period published in the Federal Register in May 29, 2007. This regulatory action takes ministerial steps to remove the vacated provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations and reinstate the prior regulatory language impacted by the May 29, 2007 final rule with comment period.     

当代侵权法比较研究

侵权法在两大法系中所采路径截然不同、风格各异,这一特点与具体规则模式和一般原则模式之间的现代法律理论的区别是相伴而生的。比较侵权法的焦点主要不是实体问题,而是侵权法的基本结构和模式问题。在侵权法的诸多具体制度上,两大法系远比普遍认为的那样更为相近,二者之间并没有不可逾越的障碍和差别。     

违法合同的效力判定路径之辨识

《合同法》第52条第5项及其司法解释对于纠正违法即无效的错误认识曾起到了历史性作用。但现有的学说及现行立法在就违法合同效力的判定路径上却存在着方向性的偏差,于司法实践并不具有真正的指导意义:区分民法内的强制规范与民法外的强制规范而异其效力,在我国并不可行;通过语义分析尚难以发现强制规范之所在;而将违法之法简单缩限为法律、行政法规上的效力性强制性规定,并不妥当,亦难以操作,且于价值及逻辑层面多有疑问;此外,将违法与损害社会公共利益予以并列,在逻辑上也有不合。故应将违法合同的效力判定纳入《合同法》第52条第4项,通过规范目的的发现及利益的衡量来最终确定违法合同的命运。