PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M F Tatelbaum

Publications and source records attributed to M F Tatelbaum.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Needlestick safety and prevention act.

The Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act to revise the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) standard regulating occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens, including the human immunodeficiency virus, the hepatitis B virus, and the hepatitis C virus, was signed into law on November 6, 2000. OSHA published in the Federal Register its regulations reflecting the Act and its requirments. The effective date of the regulations is April 18, 2001. The Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act seeks to further reduce health care workers' exposure to bloodborne pathogens by imposing additional requirements upon employers, such as hospitals and ASCs, concerning their sharps procedures. Consistent with the Act, OSHA's regulations (1) modify the definition of "engineering controls" and adds definitions for the terms "sharps with engineered sharps injury protection" and "needleless systems," (2) requires employers to consider and implement new technologies when they update their "exposure control plan," (3) requires employers to solicit employee input with respect to appropriate engineering controls, and (4) requires employers to maintain a sharps injury log. Practical questions about implementing the new requirements are a source of major concern. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce stated in legislative history to the Act that the statute was not meant to disturb the underlying flexible, performance-oriented nature of the Initial Standard.

Journal Article↗

Managed care under fire.

A recent flurry of activity in terms of litigation and legislation involving the managed care industry has produced mixed results. Common trends among actions include delayed or diminished payment and network termination, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence in plan administration, breach of contract and fraud, and prompt pay among physician cases, among plan member cases, and among regulatory enforcement cases. The results indicate that physicians face an uphill battle in their efforts to sue managed care organizations for financial causes, although they generally fare better if state regulators adopt their cause; plan members are somewhat more successful than providers, particularly in situations where an alleged denial of care results in injury; by far, the most successful litigant against managed care has been state enforcement agencies, as the states have been particularly successful in actions enforcing their prompt payment regulations. However, the managed care industry has done well in warding off suits against plan members under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's pre-emption provisions. Despite the somewhat varying degree of success, it appears that there is a perception among managed care enrollees, providers of care, and state and federal regulators and legislators that the managed care industry is wrongfully enhancing its bottom line at the expense of members' health.

Journal Article↗