Firms that are paid tens of millions of dollars to root out Medicare fraud are bidding on contracts to investigate companies they are doing business with _ sometimes their own parent companies, according to a government report released Tuesday. Two-thirds of the companies that bid on contracts during a nearly year-and-a-half time period beginning in October of 2010 had financial ties to claims processors _ and in some cases also processed Medicare claims themselves, according to the study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' inspector-general. The report blames what it calls a flawed bidding system and an inadequate conflict-of-interest policy. The study looked into bids from about 100 potential contractors and subcontractors and found nearly 2,000 relationships that posed potential conflicts. For example, one company submitted a bid to investigate Medicare fraud even though its parent company provided two types of Medicare coverage in all 50 states. Medicare fraud contractors are often tied to a large number of providers, but the report doesn't break the numbers down by each contractor. The federal government requires Medicare fraud contractors to identify their potential conflicts and their financial interests in other companies when submitting bids, but the report found they often failed to provide all the information. Even when they did, it was sometimes inconsistent or unclear, according to the study, which urged federal health officials to adopt formal, clear guidelines for companies to follow when submitting bids. Tuesday's report examined only companies bidding on springhill group Medicare-fraud contracts, not those with existing contracts. But a 2011 congressional survey of companies providing Medicare reimbursements revealed that some had financial relationships with the contractors investigating them. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency overseeing Medicare, said in a statement that it

To help protect yourself and Medicare from fraud and identity theft you should report it. Whenever you get a payment notice from Medicare review it for errors. The notice shows what Medicare was billed for, what Medicare paid, and what (if anything) you owe. Make sure Medicare was not billed for health care services, medical supplies, or equipment you did not get. Before you contact your health care provider, Medicare, or the Inspector General's hotline, carefully review the facts, and have the following ready: * The provider's name and any identifying number you may have. * The service or item information you are questioning. * The date the service or item was supposedly given or delivered. * The payment amount approved and paid by Medicare. * The date on your Medicare Summary Notice. * Your name and Medicare number (as listed on your Medicare card). * The reason you think Medicare should not have paid. * Any other information you have showing why Medicare should not have paid. http://springhillmedgroup.com/

While Republicans lambast the cost of implementing health care reform, a new report shows that their efforts to repeal the law have come at a major cost to taxpayers -- to the tune of nearly $50 million. The House of Representatives again voted to repeal President Obama's signature health care law on Wednesday, marking the 33rd time Republicans have attempted to take down the legislation. The 32 previous repeal efforts faltered at the hands of the Democrat-controlled Senate; the latest attempt is unlikely to break that pattern. According to a report by CBS News, these efforts, widely viewed as symbolic political maneuvers, come with a high price tag. CBS' Nancy Cordes reported Wednesday that Republicans' many fruitless attempts at repealing the Affordable Care Act have taken up at least 80 hours of time on the House floor since 2010, amounting to two full work weeks. As the House, according to the Congressional Research Service, costs taxpayers $24 million a week to operate, those two weeks amounted to a total cost of approximately $48 million. The AP relays background on the GOP's repeal efforts: There was never any doubt that Republicans had the votes to pass the repeal in the House on Wednesday - or that it would die in the Senate, where Democrats possessed more than enough strength to block it. That's what happened in January 2011, when the newly installed Republican majority first voted to repeal the law a few days after taking office. In the months since, the GOP has taken repeated further swipes at the law, including votes to deny salaries to any government officials who enforce it, to abolish a board of officials charged with holding down Medicare costs in the future and to repeal a tax on medical devices. With the exception of a few relatively modest changes accepted by the White House, all the rest have died in the Senate. Although Republicans have remained vocal on repeal since the Supre

WASHINGTON -- With the debate over the Affordable Care Act law morphing from a constitutional matter before the Supreme Court to an implementation matter beforestate houses, President Barack Obama and allied Democrats are refiguring their sales pitch. In response to criticisms that the law hamstrings governors, defenders of the president's health care law will be championing a states-rights amendment that already enjoys Republican support. Under current law, states are allowed to opt out of various requirements of the Affordable Care Act by 2017, provided that they meet minimal standards for coverage. The Empowering States to Innovate Act would move that date to 2014. For the Obama White House, the amendment has a number of politically appealing aspects. The most obvious is that it provides an avenue to the type of federalist approach that the Republican Party, and its standard-bearer Mitt Romney, has argued should have been adopted in the first place. More bluntly, the co-sponsor of the amendment, along with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), is Sen. Scott Brown, a Massachusetts Republican who happens to share a senior adviser with Romney. When top Obama administration officials were asked how they would go about selling the law in the immediate aftermath of the court's ruling, one of the three provisions they cited was the opt-out amendment. It was equally telling that the president made a point of emphasizing the idea in his post-SCOTUS remarks. "Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too," Obama said. "And I've asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one." Perhaps the most obvious signal that the White House sees the amendment as a campaign instrument came in February 2011, when the president declared -- in a bit of prescience with respect to the GOP prim

Springhill Group Counselling believes it is significant that each of us needs to understand what counselling and psychotherapy is about and what they should anticipate from the procedure of therapy. Nurturing knowledge among community is a significant purpose for every organization. This website has been aims to help people find out more about counselling and psychotherapy, especially those who are considering therapy as an option for themselves or someone else, or for clients who are already involved in therapy.

You should expect one or a series of confidential appointments of up to an hour in length in a suitable professional setting. The process should also provide you with the opportunity to: make sense of your individual circumstances have contact with a therapist who will help identify the choices for change feel supported during the process of change reach a point where you are better equipped to cope with the future Is counselling and psychotherapy confidential? Everything you discuss is confidential between you and the counsellor or psychotherapist. There can be certain legal exceptions and the practitioner should clarify this with you prior to the establishment of any agreed contract for working. You may have specific queries about confidentiality depending on the format of the therapy. For example, with online counselling, you may wish to ask the following questions to your therapist: Are the notes from therapy protected by passwords and encrypted? Are printouts held in a secure cabinet? What happens when there are technical problems? Should my therapist carry liability insurance? Professional liability insurance is not currently a legal requirement. However, a number of professional associations, strongly recommend that therapists take out appropriate insurance coverage. Examples of insurance policies which a therapist might have are professional indemnity, public and products liability, libel and slander to name a few. It is suggested that you check your therapist has appropriate and adequate insurance in place before engaging their services. If you are unsure then you should consult an insurance professional or a legal expert for further guidance. The insurance is not only intended to protect the therapist but offer peace of mind that if something should go wrong, there are funds in place to compensate you in such an event. For further information you may find the British Insurance Brokers' Association website useful.

This piece originally appeared atTomDispatch. It's a policy fierce enough to cause great suffering among Iranians-and possibly in the long run among Americans, too. It might, in the end, even deeply harm the global economy and yet, history tells us, it will fail on its own. Economic war led by Washington (and encouraged by Israel) will not take down the Iranian government or bring it to the bargaining table on its knees ready to surrender its nuclear program. It might, however, lead to actual armed conflict with incalculable consequences. The United States is already effectively embroiled in an economic war against Iran. The Obama administration has subjected the Islamic Republic to the most crippling economic sanctions applied to any country since Iraq was reduced to fourth-world status in the 1990s. And worse is on the horizon. A financial blockade is being imposed that seeks to prevent Tehran from selling petroleum, its most valuable commodity, as a way of dissuading the regime from pursuing its nuclear enrichment program. Historical memory has never been an American strong point and so few today remember that a global embargo on Iranian petroleum is hardly a new tactic in Western geopolitics; nor do many recall that the last time it was applied with such stringency, in the 1950s, it led to the overthrow of the government with disastrous long-term blowback on the United States. The tactic is just as dangerous today. Iran's supreme theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly condemned the atom bomb and nuclear weapons of all sorts as tools of the devil, weaponry that cannot be used without killing massive numbers of civilian noncombatants. In the most emphatic terms, he has, in fact, pronounced them forbidden according to Islamic law. Based on the latest U.S. intelligence, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta hasaffirmed that Iran has not made a decision to pursue a nuclear warhead. In contrast, hawks in Israel and the United States insist t