JCAHO response to Congressional investigation
Accreditation Connection, May 29, 2006
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Accreditation Connection!
"The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations welcomes a review by Congress, because it is important that public policymakers be well-informed about the Joint Commission and the benefits that it provides to all Americans. Since November 2005, the Joint Commission has been working diligently with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on a study that is addressing the relationship between the Joint Commission and its subsidiary Joint Commission Resources. The Joint Commission has cooperated fully with the GAO's evaluation and likewise will provide a comprehensive response to Messieurs Grassley, Baucus and Stark in an expeditious manner.
"The Joint Commission reiterates that the 2004 GAO study referenced by Mr. Stark was seriously flawed as the Joint Commission persuasively documented after the study was released. That study utilized grossly misleading metrics and omitted highly relevant and positive information about the Joint Commission's performance. However, despite the biased findings contained within the report, the Joint Commission engaged in a constructive dialog with the Congress on ways to strengthen federal oversight of all hospital accreditation activities. We welcome the opportunity to further that discussion.
"It is important to underscore the fact that both the Joint Commission and its wholly owned subsidiary, Joint Commission Resources, are 501(c) 3 not-for-profit organizations. The missions of these organizations are complementary in improving health care quality and safety in the United States and around the world. Finally, accreditation by the Joint Commission is voluntary on the part of health care organizations, and accreditation alone does not establish eligibility for participation in Medicare. These determinations are reserved for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services."
May 22, 2006
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Accreditation Connection!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: What is the correct revenue code for a blood draw?
- 2010 ICD-9 code updates now available online
- CMS proposes few changes for 2011 OPPS
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Risk assessments: The catch-all for hazard analysis
- Take advantage of nine tips for RAC appeal success
- School's back: The dilemma of practice-based learning
- CA hospital to pay US $5.25 million for "turbocharging"
- Featured blog post: Joint Commission releases least complied with standards for first half of 2010
- Q&A: Criminal and civil penalties
- E-mailed
-
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Q/A: What is the correct revenue code for a blood draw?
- Featured blog post: CT scan risks outlined in NEJM article
- Feature blog post: Support for residents' spouses
- Ensure strong appeals for IRF denials by documenting eight coverage criteria
- Discharge Planning Under the MDS 3.0
- Correctly code for obstetric/maternity services provided during various stages of delivery
- CMW News: ED physicians request more resources
- CMS announces MDS 3.0 training opportunities
- Center for Transforming Healthcare hand hygiene compliance project
- Searched
