Procedures for the handling of retaliation complaints under section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act. Interim final rule; request for comments.
(13/18)
This document provides the interim final regulations governing the employee protection (whistleblower) provision of section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act, which added section 18C of the Fair Labor Standards Act, to provide protections to employees of health insurance issuers or other employers who may have been subject to retaliation for reporting potential violations of the law's consumer protections (e.g., the prohibition on denials of insurance due to pre-existing conditions) or affordability assistance provisions (e.g., access to health insurance premium tax credits). This interim rule establishes procedures and time frames for the handling of retaliation complaints under section 18C, including procedures and time frames for employee complaints to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), investigations by OSHA, appeals of OSHA determinations to an administrative law judge (ALJ) for a hearing de novo, hearings by ALJs, review of ALJ decisions by the Administrative Review Board (ARB) (acting on behalf of the Secretary of Labor), and judicial review of the Secretary's final decision. (+info)
The silence of the unblown whistle: the Nevada hepatitis C public health crisis.
(14/18)
In 2008, one of the worst public health crises occurred in the state of Nevada, where authorities discovered up to 63,000 patients were potentially exposed to hepatitis C infection, largely due to substandard infection control and other negligent practices at two endoscopy clinics in Las Vegas. In the subsequent grand jury proceedings that followed, it was discovered that several clinic employees not only participated in these egregious practices, but doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals witnessed yet failed to report these incidents, largely due to fears of whistleblower retaliation. In response, the Nevada state legislature attempted to strengthen whistleblower protection laws, but it remains unclear if such laws actually protect employees who attempt to report patient safety concerns. As the push for quality patient outcomes becomes more prominent with health care reform, whistleblower concerns must be effectively addressed to ensure that health care professionals can report patient safety concerns without fear of retaliation. (+info)
Ethics, funding and alcohol research.
(15/18)
The field of alcohol research is a multidisciplinary area of inquiry. Moreover the debate about alcohol issues is highly politicized, involving not only researchers but also 'advocates' and those with strong ideological orientations or who represent powerful vested interests. Researchers may easily be caught in the crossfire in polemics involving such people. From time to time ethical malpractice is evident, yet there are often neither clear guidelines to delineate which behaviours are unacceptable nor how ethical violations are to be handled. This paper considers a number of key issues currently topical in the field. These are specifically concerned with the relationships between funders or sponsors and policy makers and researchers. Such issues include the ownership of data, sponsor control and the divergent cultures and outlooks of researchers and sponsors/funders. It is concluded that the field of alcohol research requires a code of ethics to regulate the relationship between researchers and funders. This should provide protection for subjects, patients, clients, researchers and those who pay for research. Some tentative suggestions are put forward for discussion. (+info)
What are the limits to the obligations of the nurse?
(16/18)
This paper enquires into the nature and the extent of the obligations of nurses. It is argued that nurses appear to be obliged to undertake supererogatory acts if they take clause one of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC) Code of Professional Conduct seriously (as, indeed, they are required to do). In the first part of the paper, the nature of nursing obligations is outlined, and then the groups and individuals to whom nurses have obligations are identified. Following a brief discussion of the moral foundation of the nurse's obligations to her/his employer, a common conflict of obligations is identified. Then a distinction is drawn between ordinary and extraordinary moral standards. Appreciation of this is necessary for an understanding of the criterion of what constitutes a supererogatory act. By the definition of supererogatory acts proposed below, it is suggested that actions such as whistleblowing satisfy that definition. (+info)