Occasional observations on the world from the perspective of a realist (i.e. pessimist) libertarian.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Sunday, September 22, 2013
University of California. Of course.
UCSF fundraiser advocates withholding health care from Obamacare opponents
By the way, is there anyone more likely to reflect the zeitgeist of a major medical center than a senior fundraiser at that institution?
UCSF fundraiser advocates withholding health care from Obamacare opponents
By the way, is there anyone more likely to reflect the zeitgeist of a major medical center than a senior fundraiser at that institution?
Sunday, August 04, 2013
h/t instapundit:
UCLA officials bend travel rules with first-class flights, luxury hotels
Well, at least no one is dying over this apparent medical fraud.
UCLA officials bend travel rules with first-class flights, luxury hotels
Well, at least no one is dying over this apparent medical fraud.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
An interesting article regarding the University of California:
http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_2_multiculti-university.html
http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_2_multiculti-university.html
Saturday, March 30, 2013
UCI Medical Center settles federal fraud case
The headline focuses on the wrong aspect of this case, in my opinion. It's not just the million dollar plus fraud that's the biggest problem here. It's that the fraud was occasioned by the practice of not providing promised, and billed-for, services.
Again.
This is very like a 2001 case, which I believe is Krahel et al v Regents of University of California. I believe that case is one in which Regents eventually settled, for $22.5M, claims of "routine misbilling" which claims allegedly revolved around charging for the services of attending physicians who were not even in the hospital at the time the services were performed. Very similar to the 2013 case described in the link on this blog post.
In the 2013 case, the promised and billed-for service was attending physician supervision during anesthesia. Something to consider if you plan to undergo anesthesia at a University of California facility.
The headline focuses on the wrong aspect of this case, in my opinion. It's not just the million dollar plus fraud that's the biggest problem here. It's that the fraud was occasioned by the practice of not providing promised, and billed-for, services.
Again.
This is very like a 2001 case, which I believe is Krahel et al v Regents of University of California. I believe that case is one in which Regents eventually settled, for $22.5M, claims of "routine misbilling" which claims allegedly revolved around charging for the services of attending physicians who were not even in the hospital at the time the services were performed. Very similar to the 2013 case described in the link on this blog post.
This is very like a 2001 case, which I believe is Krahel et al v Regents of University of California. I believe that case is one in which Regents eventually settled, for $22.5M, claims of "routine misbilling" which claims allegedly revolved around charging for the services of attending physicians who were not even in the hospital at the time the services were performed. Very similar to the 2013 case described in the link on this blog post.
In the 2013 case, the promised and billed-for service was attending physician supervision during anesthesia. Something to consider if you plan to undergo anesthesia at a University of California facility.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)