PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10123520

Medicare, Medicaid and CLIA programs; CLIA program fee collection; correction--HCFA. Correcting amendments.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This rule corrects a technical error in a rule entitled, "Regulations Implementing the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA)" which inadvertently deleted some content of another rule entitled, "CLIA Program Fee Collection." Both rules were published in the Federal Register on February 28, 1992. We are restoring, without change, the content of sections 493.602 through 493.634, which was incorrectly removed effective September 1, 1992.

Explore related subjects

CertificationFacility Regulation and ControlFees and ChargesLaboratoriesMedicaidMedicareUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

1993-01-19. Medicare, Medicaid and CLIA programs; CLIA program fee collection; correction--HCFA. Correcting amendments.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10123520/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to determine whether the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO OGS) can be assessed accurately from digital dental casts and whether there are statistical differences between digital and plaster dental casts in scoring the ABO OGS. METHODS: Thirty posttreatment plaster dental casts were selected and scanned by OrthoCAD (Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ) to produce 30 corresponding digital dental casts. The plaster and digital casts were compared by using the criteria of the ABO OGS. Because the data were ordinal, a nonparametic statistical analysis was used. RESULTS: The Wilcoxon test for paired samples showed significant differences between the plaster and digital casts for occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and total scores (P <.05). No significant differences were found for alignment, marginal ridges, overjet, and interproximal contacts. Buccolingual inclination was not included in this study because of inability to perform proper measurements with the OrthoCAD program. Mean differences of points deducted ranged from .03 point for marginal ridges to 5.07 points for the total score. The variable with the most points deducted related to occlusal relationships, and the fewest points were deducted for interproximal contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, the current OrthoCAD program (version 2.2) was not adequate for scoring all parameters as required by the ABO OGS.

Certification↗