Only time will tell whether the healthcare reform laws passed by Congress this spring will be the salvation Democrats promise or the nightmare Republicans predict. One consequence, even so, has already become clear: Enforcement of anti-fraud laws will boost dramatically.

Morgan Lewis & Bockius Alert on Healthcare Reform (March 31, 2010)

Hall Render Alert on Healthcare Reform (April 15, 2010)

Pillsbury Alert on Healthcare Legislation (April 22, 2010)

Morgan Lewis: Summary of Fraud Abuse Requirements

Related Coverage

Healthcare Reform Expands False Claims Liability (April 13, 2010)

Any business receiving government money for healthcare—hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, medical-device makers, health insurers, suppliers to any of those, and many more—now face a world of much more emboldened regulators, freshly armed with hundreds of millions in new money to fight fraud. What’s more, the language in several key statutes has also been changed to expand the scope of liability for fraud and who can press fraud claims against businesses accepting government funds. And as ever-more numbers of U.S. citizens see at least part of their health insurance funded by the government, that hawkish eye searching for potential fraud is likely to be permanent.

McDermott

“Fraud and abuse is going to be a sustained government focus because the dollars in healthcare and the number of beneficiaries have so dramatically increased,” says Kathleen McDermott, a partner in the law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

Healthcare reform, which formally existed as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, provides an extra $350 million to crack down on Medicare fraud and similar abuse over the next decade; $250 million of that is front-loaded into fiscal years 2011 through 2016. The laws also make major changes “behind the scenes, in terms of the government’s tools to find fraud and abuse and the stick they have when they find it,” says Clinton Mikel of the law firm Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman. That includes expanded investigative tools and data-sharing powers, new and increased penalties, and additional funding for enforcing fraud and abuse laws.

Mikel

“For any healthcare provider that directly or indirectly receives payments from any federal healthcare program, the government has a buffet line of new powers to come after you,” Mikel warns.

Compliance officers in all corners of the healthcare industry should expect to be plenty busy in coming months, adjusting their compliance and reporting procedures in response to the changes. Exactly what they should do is still unclear, on the other hand, since many of the laws’ implementing regulations have not yet been written.

“For any healthcare provider that directly or indirectly receives payments from any federal healthcare program, the government has a buffet line of new powers to come after you.”
—Clinton Mikel,
Lawyer,
Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman

“There are more unknowns than knowns at this point,” says Christa Rapoport, chief compliance officer at employee benefits consulting firm Corporate Synergies Group. “But something we do know is that … enforcers won’t have a lot of leniency.” She says healthcare organizations will need to “drill down to an operational level … and look at their entire way of doing business.”

While CCOs await those implementing regulations, a productive use of their time might be to assess their current systems for handling payments as well as contracting and auditing procedures, says Douglas Grimm, a former hospital administrator who is now a lawyer with the firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw.

Specifically, CCOs should consider the problem of overpayment from the federal government—which has long been a fact of life healthcare providers submitting claims under federal programs like Medicare. Providers are supposed to return such overpayments in a timely manner, and in 2009, the Federal Enforcement & Recovery Act stipulated that failure to do so would expose a company to fraud liability under the False Claims Act. The healthcare reform laws passed in March “take it further, by making it clear that if providers don’t return overpayments within 60 days, it may be actionable under the FCA,” says Andrew Tulumello, partner in the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.

Tulumello

Translation: Common payment disputes can become major FCA issues. “For companies that are processing hundreds or thousands of reimbursement claims from Medicare and Medicaid, the likelihood that there is going to be a compliance miss is pretty high,” Tulumello warns.

FRAUD AND ABUSE

Excerpt from Morgan Lewis chart: Fraud and Abuse and Program Integrity:

Provision (Section of Healthcare ReformLaw and Related Laws):
Overpayments Sec. 6402 (42 U.S.C. § 1301 et. seq.)

Summary of Requirement—Fraud and Abuse:

* Overpayments must be reported and returned within 60 days of identity or the date a corresponding cost report is due, which ever is later. Repayments may be made to the carrier, contractor, or intermediary.
* Any overpayment retained after the 60-day deadline is considered an obligation for purposes of the False Claims Act.
* 2009 False Claims Act amendments provided an expanded definition of obligation. 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(3).

Effective Date:
March 23, 2010

Provision (Section of Healthcare ReformLaw and Related Laws):
Medicare Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol Sec. 6409

Summary of Requirement—Fraud and Abuse:

* Establishes a self-referral disclosure protocol (SRDP) for healthcare providers and suppliers to disclose an actual or potential violation of the Federal Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark Law).
* Authorizes HHS discretion to reduce the amount due and owing for all violations under the Stark Law to an amount less than that specified in the statute. In establishing the amount due, the following factors may be considered:

—Nature and extent of the improper or illegal practice
—Timeliness of such self-disclosure
—Cooperation in providing additional information related to the disclosure
—Such other factors as the Secretary considers appropriate

Effective Date:
SRDP procedures to be established no more than six months from the date of enactment, March 23, 2010

Procedures to be established in consultation with the OIG.

Provision (Section of Healthcare ReformLaw and Related Laws):
Medicare/Medicaid Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) Amendments. Sec. 6402 (42 U.S.C. § 1320a- 7b)

Summary of Requirement—Fraud and Abuse:

* A claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act.
* A person need not have actual knowledge of the AKS nor specific intent to commit an AKS violation.

Effective Date:
March 23, 2010

Provision (Section of Healthcare ReformLaw and Related Laws):
Expansion of Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Program

Summary of Requirement—Fraud and Abuse:
Mandates the expansion of the RAC program into Medicaid by requiring states to contract by December 31, 2010 with one or more RACs to identify underpayments and overpayments and recoup overpayments for Medicaid services. Sec. 6411 (42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(42))

Mandates the expansion of the RAC program to Medicare Parts C and D by requiring HHS Secretary to contract with RACs to, among other things, ensure that each Part C MA plan and each Part D prescription drug plan has an anti- fraud plan in effect and to review the effectiveness of such anti-fraud plan. Sec. 6411 (42 U.S.C. § 1395ddd(h))

Requires CMS to submit an annual report to Congress regarding the effectiveness of the RAC program under Medicare and Medicaid. Sec. 6411

Effective Date:
March 23, 2010

Source

Morgan Lewis: Summary of Fraud Abuse Requirements

This is not something healthcare businesses should take lightly, either. FCA violations can be expensive unto themselves, with legal costs, financial penalties, and damages. But worse, offending parties can be prohibited from participating in Medicare or Medicaid; that, Tulumello says, “can be a death penalty for lot of companies in the space.”

For that reason, experts say healthcare providers, suppliers, and health plans need to ensure that they have robust payment processing and audit procedures in place, so they can catch and return any overpayments quickly—and so they can demonstrate to government investigators that they do so.

And There’s More

Healthcare reform throws several more curveballs in the anti-fraud game. It amends the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (which bars payments for referrals) so that the government no longer needs to prove intent to show violations of the law. It also amends the physician self-referral law, known as the Stark Law, which generally prohibits doctors from referring a patient to a healthcare facility where he or a family member has a financial interest; the new language requires the Department of Health & Human Services to implement a self-disclosure protocol for providers that discover Stark violations.

HHS will have discretion to reduce the penalties for Stark violations based on the facts and circumstances, including factors such as the timeliness of self-disclosure and cooperation. Healthcare reform also limits a Stark exception that allows physicians to hold ownership interests in hospitals.

McDermott says companies need to confirm that all their agreements are in writing and properly documented for Stark compliance, to make sure they are “not in a gotcha situation.”

“A lot hospitals and doctors don’t adhere to basic contracting provisions,” McDermott says. “Their contracts are half signed or not signed at all.”

Kozlow-Barnes

Healthcare reform also increases and expands Recovery Audit Contractor Program audits, where outside parties audit healthcare providers for fraud and keep a portion of any amounts they recover. Susanne Kozlow-Barnes, another lawyer with the firm Hall Render, says that’s reason for concern. Since RAC auditors are paid on a contingency basis, “they have incentive to be aggressive,” she says.

McDermott notes that healthcare providers and plans will need to devote resources both to internal auditing efforts and to responses to RAC requests. Since RACs, which operate on behalf of the government, can refer program integrity problems or fraud worries to law enforcement, healthcare providers should structure audit responses to RACs “with the same degree of diligence as a direct government request,” according to a legal bulletin from Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

And as Compliance Week has previously reported, the healthcare reform laws also amended the False Claims Act to diminish corporate defenses under the so-called “public disclosure bar.” The new language sharply narrows the definition of “publicly disclosed information,” which corporations previously could cite as a defense against qui tam lawsuits fraud whistleblowers can file on behalf of the government. The good news: Those amendments aren’t retroactive, so they don’t apply to any cases pending on or before March 23, when healthcare reform was signed into law.

Click this link to view original source

Observe Of Public Hearing

Pursuant towards the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 394.26 Observe is hereby given that a hearing from the Otter Tail County Planning Commission is going to be held within the Commissioner’s Room at the Government Services Center, Fergus Falls, Minnesota on May possibly 12, 2010 at 6:30 P.M. for that purpose of considering the following:

1. Pine Lake Township a Conditional Use Permit Application to widen Nitche Lake Road to 32’ grade within the current right-of-way, except for that part between Squaw Point Trail and 450th St., Nitche Lake Road from CSAH No 53 to N Town Line, Sec 4, 9, 10, 15, 1& 16, Pine Lake Twp; Big Pine Lake (56-130), GD, & Nitche Lake (56-126), NE.

2. Dora Township a Conditional Use Permit Application to rebuild 293rd Ave & Silent Haven Drive with a 30’ top & 3 to 1 slopes, Sec 32, Dora Twp; West Silent Lake (56-519), RD.

3. Barbara Boock et al a Conditional Use Permit Application for maintenance to existing driveway – Class 5, 10’ by 1240’ by 6” depth, 2 low areas require 350 cu yds of pit run Class 5, SE1/4 SW1/4 & Lot 4, Sec 18, Folden Twp; Unnamed Lakes (56-135), NE & (56-101), NE.

4. Bruce & Karla Vistad a Conditional Use Permit Application 1. After-The-Fact to cover 28’ of geothermal heat pump drain & 2. To move 10-14 rocks from roadside to lakeside of lot – imbedding them into the steep hill on west side of lot & add top soil/plantings for rock garden, Lot 14, Nelsons Oakwood Park Beach 1st Add, Sec 23, Elizabeth Twp; Jewett Lake (56-877), GD.

5. Robert & Kathleen Odendahl a Conditional Use Permit Application for removal of hillside & construct concrete landscape block wall in order to construct 24 x 30 garage, Lot 13 & 14 Blk 1, Elm View, Sec 16, Pine Lake Twp; Big Pine Lake (56-130), GD.

6. Wee Villa LLP Partnership a Conditional Use Permit Application to install a 5-12 pitched roof on existing mobile home, Unit #4, Lot 4 Ex Trs, Sec 14, Elizabeth Twp; Long Lake (56-784), RD.

7. East Silent Resort, LLC a Conditional Use Permit Application for a 15 year master plan to upgrade resort facilities in compliance with County Ordinances proposing 30 units & 22 docking spaces, Pt GL 1 & 2 ex trs, Sec 33, Dora Twp; East Silent Lake (56-517), RD.

Publication Dates: April 27, 2010

Source

Well-known interpersonal networking internet sites, this kind of as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, are causing a stir inside fiscal providers community as well as other highly regulated industries as companies seek methods to manage how the web-sites are used to communicate with potential clients and colleagues.

Interpersonal networking web sites have proved valuable for sales-lead generation, marketing and advertising and general broker-client relations, but regulators have been quick to take observe and to provide the identical warnings they did much more than a decade ago when e-mail and quick messaging (IM) became typical.

On the other hand, controlling communications on interpersonal networking Web web-sites is far additional complex for corporations because they're attempting to manage communications on Web sites which might be outside their IT systems and which are practically continuously changing or adding on the number of programs that will be utilised to network.

"It is a large dilemma. In fact, I believe it's a bigger dilemma [than e-mail and IM]," stated Ted Ritter, an analyst with Nemertes Investigation. "For IM and e-mail, you pretty much use standard port and protocols. You just ought to be inside the proper spot within the network to capture it and keep an eye on it."

Social networks are additional akin to webmail, exactly where there are many various methods to access the sites, which makes it much more complicated from a technology standpoint, Ritter mentioned.

"For instance, what do you do about individuals who have mobile updates to Facebook?" he said. "From an audit standpoint, as auditors turn out to be much more aware on the issues, they're going to appear for controls."

Ritter mentioned businesses will not only ought to monitor social networking communications, but they will have to capture the traffic, audit it and log it.

Concern primary cropped up with e-mail, IM

All around the turn with the century, the economic solutions market grappled with controlling IM and e-mail site visitors. Soon after the electronic messaging mediums became favorite, a pattern emerged in the company community in which financial firms would 1st block all electronic communications external on the business, then they would adopt proprietary e-mail software for corporate wide communications or restrict the ports more than which IM targeted traffic could travel to be able to keep track of and capture the communications.

The very same patterns are emerging with social networking, authorities say, and seeding a cottage business of vendors offering software and services to manage and capture corporate interpersonal networking visitors. Some of those vendors contain enterprise quick messaging security vendor FaceTime Communications, firewall provider PaloAlto Networks, IM and mobile text messaging archiving firm DexRex Gear and SaaS middleware provider Socialware.

Nowadays, quite a few businesses are attempting to merely block all access to interpersonal networking internet sites for employees who would fall under regulatory scrutiny, this sort of as broker-dealers and sales and advertising and marketing representatives, even though these employee are finding the sites invaluable.

"The primary step organizations needs to take is they need to have a reality check," Ritter explained. "They need to take ownership of what's going on in interpersonal networking. Just blocking internet sites doesn't work. Employees often discover a way all around it. And letting every thing through is too risky."

Ritter along with other business authorities say interpersonal networking internet sites present a far greater oversight dilemma than IM or e-mail -- even webmail - due to the fact you'll find so quite a few programs associated with them, including quick messaging tools and gaming applets, this kind of as Farmville or Mafia Wars on Facebook. Simply blocking sites such as Twitter or Facebook having a URL filter isn't tough.

"The trouble you have is all the tunneling software which could get all over individuals controls," explained Chris King, director of product advertising and marketing for PaloAlto Networks. "Google [the term] 'circumventing URL filtering,' and you'll see what I mean. Some blog internet sites like Lifehacker.com, and even the Wall Street Journal, publish things like top 10 ways to obtain close to your security controls."

For instance, King said, a firm employee could simply install a proxy on a residence computer, connect it to a cable modem, and when the employee is at function he can connect to that home IP address and circumvent the corporate filter.

"There's everything from Proxy.org, an application named UltraSurf, which can be the darling of high school students, to something named Core, which is the darling of spies," there's a whole bunch of programs that make acquiring all around traditional controls uncomplicated.

Regulators cast a watchful eye

Over the past 10 years, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other regulatory bodies have focused much more attention on strict enforcement of communications guidelines. For example, the SEC's Rule 17a-4 requires the monitoring and capture of electronic communications, and the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Rule 2210 and 3010, also demands firms to monitor and store communications with customers. Neither agency has as yet felt compelled to specify requirements all-around social networking targeted visitors, but it really is implicit that they fall under the same rules as e-mail and IM, Ritter explained.

In 2006, the Federal Guidelines of Civil Procedure (FRCP) established that companies should establish protocols for capturing electronically stored data prior to civil court cases. Electronic discovery of e-mails for civil court instances can run into the millions of dollars, and violations of federal regulatory statutes could lead to penalties that aren't cheap either. In 2002, the SEC fined five firms a total of $8.25 million for violating 17a-4 and NASD Rule 3110 by not properly monitoring and capturing e-mail targeted visitors.

Inside a more recent instance, various hedge-fund executives and managers with the Galleon Group, were charged with insider trading. The evidence that cracked the case open? A single text message.

Most recently, the Personal Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the enforcement arm of the SEC, issued Regulatory Discover 10-06, a document presented inside a Q&A format, that provides guidance on the responsibilities of firms to supervise the use of social networking web-sites. The guidance was issued to ensure that recommendations to clients on social networks are suitable and that their customers are not misled.

"The FINRA guidance has sent the fiscal community scrambling to figure out what to do," Ritter mentioned. "Let's say a broker becomes a fan of a business on Facebook. Is that an endorsement? In essence it can be."

Other regulations focused on corporate transparency and consumer privacy will likely also affect controls close to interpersonal networking communication. Those regulations consist of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act plus the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.

Interpersonal networks too valuable to block

Social networking is an enormously well-known way to communicate with prospective customers and to generate sales leads, particularly among younger financial products and services employees, professionals say.

For more information try to check this original news source

The Securities and Exchange Commission is close to proposing upgrades to Part 2 with the Form ADV, the primary disclosure document that customers receive from expense advisers.

“We are searching to move past the 1960s check-the-box, paper-based approach, by requiring a plain-English narrative discussion of an adviser's conflicts, compensation, business activities and disciplinary history,” SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro told compliance officials at a Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association conference.

The SEC proposed revisions towards the ADV form as long ago as 2000, and again in March 2008.

“We've been pushing the SEC challenging to obtain this done,” David Tittsworth, executive director of the Expense Advisor Association, wrote in an e-mail. "While the new requirements will involve substantial work for advisory firms, we believe the changes will aid to increase the level and high quality of facts for advisory customers.”

According to a copy of Ms. Schapiro's remarks, the agency's staff is preparing to make recommendations on the full commission about modernizing the ADV type. The revised rule will call for the form to be made offered towards public via the SEC's internet site “so that investors, regulators and also the public at big have totally free and straightforward access to it,'' she said.

Ms. Schapiro also told members of SIFMA's Compliance and Legal Society that the SEC will this year consider new rules addressing 12(b)-1 mutual fund fees paid to brokers. The costs were initially intended to pay for marketing.

“In 2008, these costs totaled $12 billion, but quite a few investors have little idea that they may be being deducted from their mutual fund — or what they are paying for,” Ms. Schapiro mentioned. “We must critically rethink how 12(b)-1 costs are applied and regardless of whether they remain appropriate.”

Source

Source

On February 2, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an interpretative launch that offers direction to public organizations on present disclosure requirements related to challenges relating to surroundings alter and greenhouse gas emissions. SEC Launch No. 33-9106, February two, 2010. Last July, the authors wrote about thenrecent developments in this place. See Disclosing Environmental Liabilities: Recent Advancements in Legal and Accounting Standards, 61 Business enterprise Law Nowadays (July/August 2009). The commission’s support may be the latest development and will most likely have the greatest effect thus far on disclosure methods in this spot. Despite the fact that the support doesn't generate any new requirements, it can be likely to force companies to think about disclosures more very carefully and to supply broader disclosures. The commission’s stated goal in issuing the support was to foster consistency. Numerous organizations are disclosing their conditions change–related dangers in an inconsistent manner, creating it complicated to compare firms against one particular one more. SEC Chair Mary Shapiro, who stressed that the commission was “not opining on no matter whether the world’s environment is changing, at what pace it may be changing, or because of what causes,” stated that the “guidance will help to make sure that . . . disclosure rules are consistently applied.”

Existing Disclosure Requirements

Regulation S-K calls for public companies to consider the potential impact of environmental laws and regulations. Merchandise 101 (Disclosure of Capital Expenditures). Merchandise 101 needs organizations to disclose any material effect that compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations might have on the capital expenditures, earnings, and competitive position from the corporation. Item 103 (Disclosure of Legal Proceedings). Merchandise 103 needs disclosure of pending or contemplated administrative or judicial proceedings that meet one of three criteria. 1st, companies should disclose a proceeding that includes a claim that is substance to its organization or monetary ailment. Second, businesses need to disclose a proceeding that requires a claim for damages or involves possible monetary sanctions or capital expenditures that exceed 10 percent from the assets with the company’s consolidated balance sheet. Finally, businesses ought to disclose proceedings where a government entity can be a party and the proceeding requires potential monetary sanctions, unless there is a reasonable basis to believe that the sanctions will be less than $100,000. Merchandise 303 (Management’s Discussion and Analysis). Piece 303 needs a organization to disclose “any known trends . . . or uncertainties” which are “reasonably likely” to have an impact on the company’s liquidity or capital expenditures. Product 503(c) (Danger Factors). Merchandise 503(c) involves a discussion from the most significant challenges that could have an effect on the company’s company, monetary issue, or future results. The new direction does not change these demands, but it expands the universe of relevant chance markers that corporations really should take into account when producing disclosures associated with climate alter and greenhouse gas emissions.

New Disclosure Considerations

The direction suggests that corporations consider regardless of whether legislation relating to climate alter or other environmental concerns, pending legislation, and conditions accords expose the company to monetary chance. The commission’s guidance also suggests that firms take into account disclosing any physical impacts from climate modify, including the risk of increased insurance claims in specific geographical areas caused by shifts in weather patterns or changes in sea level. Furthermore, the advice suggests, “Legal, technological, political and scientific advancements concerning surroundings alter may generate new opportunities or dangers for registrants.” This kind of “possible indirect outcomes or opportunities” could consist of the subsequent:

* Decreased demand for goods that create major greenhouse gas emissions;
* Enhanced demand for goods that result in lower emissions than competing goods;
* Elevated competition to produce new merchandise;
* Decreased demand for services related to carbon-based energy sources; and
* Regardless of whether public perception of offered data relating to a registrant’s greenhouse gas emissions could expose it to adverse effects to its business enterprise operations or fiscal situation on account of reputational damage.

More than Direction in Reality

In its January press release, the commission stated that its “interpretative releases do not build new legal specifications nor modify present ones, but are intended to supply clarity and enhance consistency for public organizations and their investors.” Despite the fact that the advice will not build a “legal requirement,” public firms think about such statements by the commission to be binding.

Strategies for Incorporating Direction

Although an analysis of possible material risks relating to environment transform and greenhouse gas emission is beyond the scope of this article, offered the new SEC support, public corporations, particularly those in environmentally sensitive industries, may perhaps be wise to look at taking the following actions: Analyze Facts and Information. Companies may want to assess their expertise (and their capability to gather the relevant details) regarding

1. present legislation and regulations, pending environmental legislation and regulations, and international accords;
a couple of. greenhouse gas emissions; (3) internal controls and expertise concerning indirect penalties of regulation or enterprise trends; and (4) potential physical consequences of surroundings modify.

Analyze Disclosure Procedures. Simply because the support is not tailored to a particular business or geographic spot, all companies may wish to look at very carefully their environmental disclosure practices. How the advice is most likely to have an impact on a tiny set of public organizations (e.g., power producers and distributors) disproportionately when compared to other industries is of little consequence. In its interpretative launch, the commission stated that it “will monitor the impact of this interpretative discharge on business filings” in connection with its “ongoing disclosure review program.” Analyze the Impact of Other Disclosures. Organizations might would like to look at all disclosures (to regulators or otherwise) concerning environmental concerns in order to make sure such disclosures are consistent.

Challenging Road Ahead

Given the amorphous risk markers identified in the commission’s support (e.g., pending legislation), the practice of disclosing dangers associated with climate adjust and other environmental problems is now much more complex. The fact that businesses look at the guidance binding only exacerbates this complexity. These components, together with the uncertainty surrounding the climate-change debate, make it tough to identify, with any degree of certainty, the very best procedures in this region. Corporations can take the following actions to raise the likelihood that their possibility disclosures relating to climate modify will conform to the new advice:

1. Produce robust processes for gathering and analyzing improvements relating to climate-change challenges and initiatives, which includes legislative and regulatory developments, and
2. Review disclosure practices as a whole by means of the lens with the new advice.

One particular point is particular: the new SEC support appears aimed at forcing companies to spend a lot more time and effort examining the chance (real or imagined) relating to surroundings adjust and other environmental concerns.

The Interior Department is proposing to split the Minerals Management Support in two. One agency would inspect oil rigs, investigate oil firms and enforce safety regulations. The other would oversee leases for drilling and collection of billions of dollars in royalties.

MICHELE NORRIS, host:

From NPR News, this is ALL Things CONSIDERED. I'm Michele Norris.

ROBERT SIEGEL, host:

And I'm Robert Siegel.

We begin this hour with news on the massive oil spill inside the Gulf of Mexico, now moving closer to the mouth from the Mississippi. As BP struggles to shut down the underwater gusher, authorities are trying to realize what caused the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.

On Capitol Hill nowadays, BP and Transocean, which owns the rig, pointed fingers at every other. In a moment we'll head to New Orleans and a public hearing into the accident.

But, very first, NPR's Elizabeth Shogren reports that the agency that oversees offshore oil drilling is about to be carved in two.

ELIZABETH SHOGREN: The Minerals Management Agency collects additional funds for that government than any other agency, except the Treasury Department. It sells leases for oil and gas production and collects billions of dollars in royalties each year. Until now, it was also the chief cop of the oil and gas sector. But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is changing that.

Secretary KEN SALAZAR (Department of Interior): So that there is certainly no conflict, real or perceived.

SHOGREN: The new office will be in charge of investigating problems and enforcing laws and regulations.

Sec. SALAZAR: And we will make certain the American individuals that they have a strong and independent organization holding energy corporations accountable and in compliance with the law of the land.

SHOGREN: Considering that the Deepwater Horizon properly exploded, there have been lots of questions about whether the Minerals Management Service was doing its job. For instance, the agency gave BP what's known as a categorical exclusion prior to it drilled the Deepwater Horizon properly.

Mr. BILL SNAPE (Chief Counsel, Center for Biological Diversity): Which means there's no public review, no scientific analysis, no discussion of alternatives. It's literally a rubber stamp process.

SHOGREN: Bill Snape may be the chief counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. The agency has continued to give out these categorical exclusions, even since the April 20 accident. Snape says the agency has a long history of being too cozy with industry.

A report by the Interior Department's own inspector general two years ago found that agency officials were regularly accepting gifts from marketplace executives and engaging in sex, drugs and drinking with them.

Salazar says he's been limited by the law in what changes he can make. For instance, the agency has only 30 days to review a request to explore on an existing lease sale. These days, Salazar asked Congress to extend that to 90 days.

Sec. SALAZAR: There is no way that any agency can frankly do an adequate environmental assessment within a 30-day time frame.

SHOGREN: Salazar says the business ought to expect additional reforms as government learns far more lessons from what went wrong with the Deepwater Horizon.

View Article Source

TORONTO (TheStreet) -- Generex Biotechnology(GNBT) is planning a reverse store split to raise the selling price of its widespread commodity and stave off delisting from the Nasdaq.

In a proxy filing last week, Generex, developers of an experimental oral insulin spray known as Oral-lyn, said it plans to seek shareholder approval to implement a reverse commodity split aimed at lifting its stock cost above $1 a write about. Generex holds its annual shareholder meeting on July 28.

Generex faces delisting from the Nasdaq later this year mainly because the investment doesn't meet the exchange's listing requirements, in accordance with a non-compliance observe reported on the SEC by the corporation. Generex shares closed Tuesday at about 38 cents and have traded below the $1-a-share threshold since June 2008.

"We wish to thank our long term stockholders for their continuing support," mentioned Generex CEO Anna Gluskin in a very corporation press release that announced the receipt of a non-compliance discover from Nasdaq. Gluskin added, "Management is devoted to securing the best interests of Generex, thereby creating value for its stockholders."

In a reverse commodity split, a organization reduces the amount of widespread shares outstanding, thereby increasing the price tag of each reveal of widespread commodity proportionally.

The bump in the investment cost is frequently only a temporary reprieve.

"Most reverse share splits don't work since all the bad points that caused the company's share price tag to fall are still there immediately after the split," stated Jon Johnson, chief market strategist at StockSplits.net, an investment newsletter that tracks stock splits.

Generex is contemplating an exchange ratio of not less than 1-for-3 and not additional than 1-for-10, according towards company's proxy statement. This implies a per-share share price of at least $1.08 and as much as $3.70 following the reverse investment split, based on Generex's current commodity value.

In a very typical reverse store split, corporations also lessen the number of shares in their corporate treasury. However, Generex says it intends to maintain the number of shares in its corporate treasury at 750 million, equal to the amount of treasury shares before the planned reverse stock split, in accordance with plans detailed in its proxy statement.

If you want to view the original source, try to click this link

ENEXA, KS, May 11, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Mediware Data Systems, Inc. /quotes/comstock/15*!medw/quotes/nls/medw (MEDW 9.38, +0.10, +1.08%) announced these days that it has launched KnowledgeTrak, a new product that offers healthcare managers automated tools to oversee teaching needs. The program uniquely delivers and documents training offerings, tracks compliance and assesses competencies, all within a single computer software answer. It is going to be fully integrated with Mediware's LifeTrak blood management computer software, which gives 510(k) cleared donor management capabilities including eligibility, laboratory and distribution.

KnowledgeTrak leverages the assets and expertise of recently acquired Knowledge-Forge, an e-learning and compliance management corporation based in Denver, Colo. With years of experience working with blood centers, hospitals, laboratories and medical device manufacturers, Knowledge-Forge has a unique understanding of healthcare education along with the distinctive requirements of regulatory compliance management. It has provided understanding management services to a broad selection of blood centers, hospitals plus the AABB (formerly recognized as the American Association of Blood Banks).

"Blood centers are required to document the instruction, certifications and competencies of their staff -- a function that's extremely inefficient and labor intensive, yet necessary within the regulated environments of blood centers and hospital blood banks," said Thomas Mann, Mediware's president and chief executive officer. "Through the acquisition of Knowledge-Forge we have a comprehensive library of e-learning content in addition to a proven delivery method that will be a valuable addition to our blood management business."

The KnowledgeTrak answer uses a proprietary Compliance & Mastering Management Program(TM) (CLMS) to provide an easy to use, and easy to deploy, method designed especially for blood centers and hospital-based blood banks. It assures perfect staff compliance to teaching goals and regulatory requirements. Courseware from KnowledgeTrak's extensive K-Book(TM) compliance library can be used off-the-shelf or tailored to incorporate customer SOPs, images and edits -- providing the fastest and most effective deployment possible. KnowledgeTrak also offers coaching development tools and can create custom content for any e-learning platform.

"We see an immediate need within our growing base of existing blood management customers -- both on the blood center and hospital markets," continued Mr. Mann. "The stand-alone option of this product is powerful, but when integrated into our suite of Blood Center Technologies products, the value proposition to our partner clients is unmatched inside the industry nowadays."

Mediware, which did not release the terms of the Knowledge-Forge acquisition, will begin offering the KnowledgeTrak option as an integrated part of its Blood Center Technologies in May possibly 2010.

Click this link to view source