Congress looks at relationship between accrediting body and consulting division
Credentialing Resource Center Connection, July 27, 2006
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
Three members of Congress, including the chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, requested in May a detailed explanation from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) about its relationship to its wholly-controlled, not-for-profit affiliate, to determine whether the relationship represents a conflict of interest that affects the hospital accrediting process.
The request comes two years after a 2004 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigatory body of Congress, identified flaws in the JCAHO's hospital accreditation survey process, and roughly six months into an ongoing GAO investigation of the JCAHO and its subsidiary.
Increased scrutiny from Congress of the JCAHO could force the accrediting body to distance itself from its consulting division, and result in stricter enforcement of JCAHO standards. For hospitals, that might also mean increased audits and more oversight from the federal government.
For further details on this story, see the upcoming September 2006 edition of Medical Staff Briefing.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
Related Products
-
Credentialing Resource Center
CRC is now available online! Receive updates up to four days earlier than the print version and save on shipping costs.
-
Credentialing Resource Center Connection
National credentialing and privileging expert Sally J. Pelletier, CPCS, CPMSM, delivers useful and timely information in her...
-
Credentialing and Peer Review Legal Insider
The Credentialing and Peer Review Legal Insider provides the latest 'how-to' techniques, and practical 'working tools' to...
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Searched