Groups oppose HHS Secretary nominee
HIPAA Weekly Advisor, April 27, 2009
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIPAA Weekly Advisor!
Nearly 10 national organizations joined forces to send a letter dated April 22 to the U.S. Senate urging it not to approve President Barack Obama’s nomination of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KA) as the Secretary of HHS.
The letter from the Concerned Women for America cites Sebelius’ “lack of integrity” during the nomination process and her “extreme pro-abortion record” as reasons she is unfit to serve as HHS secretary.
The Associated Press reported April 24 that Senators are scheduled to vote on Sebelius’s nomination early this week and that the Senate was expected to confirm her.
Regardless of the vote, covered entities should continue to remain vigilant in following new HIPAA regulation developments per the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, says Rebecca Herold, CISSP, CIPP, CISM, CISA, FLMI, of Rebecca Herold & Associates, LLC, of Des Moines, IA.
“It’s not delaying deadlines on regulations even though a person is not in place,” Herold tells HIPAA Weekly Advisor.
The groups that authored the letter were:
- Family Research Council
- Concerned Women for America
- Focus on the Family
- Americans for Tax Reform
- Media Research Center
- American Spectator
- American Family Association
- Susan B. Anthony List
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called on Congress not to support Obama’s nomination of Sebelius unless she is more forthcoming on abortion issues.
“Significant questions remain about Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' evolving relationship with a late-term abortion doctor as well as about her position on the practice of late-term abortions," Steele said in a statement reported by the AP. "If Gov. Sebelius and the Obama administration are unwilling to answer these questions, President Obama should withdraw her nomination."
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIPAA Weekly Advisor!
Related Products
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
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- 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
