These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12968444)

  • 1. Recent significant federal and state court decisions and statutes that affect managed care provider contracting.
    Rich JP; Rinn CC; Morgan SD
    Manag Care Q; 2003; 11(2):39-47. PubMed ID: 12968444
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Health plan liability and ERISA: the expanding scope of state legislation.
    Hellinger FJ; Young GJ
    Am J Public Health; 2005 Feb; 95(2):217-23. PubMed ID: 15671453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. What is an employee benefit plan?: ERISA preemption of "any willing provider" laws after Pegram.
    Goodyear J
    Columbia Law Rev; 2001 Jun; 101(5):1107-39. PubMed ID: 11942337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. United States Supreme Court upholds "any willing provider" statutes.
    Blumenreich GA
    AANA J; 2003 Aug; 71(4):259-62. PubMed ID: 13677220
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Willing and able. Supreme Court ruling forces HMOs to open networks to any willing provider; some say it may wound managed-care industry.
    Benko LB
    Mod Healthc; 2003 Apr; 33(14):6-7, 1. PubMed ID: 12712635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The battle over self-insured health plans, or "one good loophole deserves another".
    Korobkin R
    Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics; 2005; 5(1):89-136. PubMed ID: 15742576
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Is ethics for sale?... Juggling law and ethics in managed care.
    McKoy JM; Karsjens KL; Wynia M; MacDonald-Glenn L
    DePaul J Health Care Law; 2005; 8(3):559-613. PubMed ID: 16619425
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. U.S. Supreme Court approves Kentucky "any willing provider" statute.
    McGinty C; Herron S
    GHA Today; 2003 May; 47(5):3. PubMed ID: 12845911
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Supreme Court's limitation of managed-care liability.
    Mariner WK
    N Engl J Med; 2004 Sep; 351(13):1347-52. PubMed ID: 15385665
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The swinging pendulum: the Supreme Court reverses course on ERISA and managed care.
    Kesselheim AS; Brennan TA
    Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics; 2005; 5(1):451-63. PubMed ID: 15742588
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. AWP reimbursement ruling may be more than meets eye.
    Carroll J
    Manag Care; 2003 May; 12(5):12, 14. PubMed ID: 12800739
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Back to the '90s--the Supreme Court immunizes managed care.
    Bloche MG
    N Engl J Med; 2004 Sep; 351(13):1277-9. PubMed ID: 15385651
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Considerations in Medicare reform: the impact of Medicare preemption on state laws.
    Jackonis MJ
    Ann Health Law; 2004; 13(1):179-231, table of contents. PubMed ID: 15002184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Ready and willing.
    Borges W
    Tex Med; 2003 Jun; 99(6):35-7. PubMed ID: 12836574
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Subrogation or subterfuge: the myth of ERISA health benefit plans.
    Murphy GF
    J Contemp Health Law Policy; 2002; 19(1):309-33. PubMed ID: 12733230
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. U.S. Supreme Court wades into ERISA one more time.
    Roeder KH; Rees JS
    GHA Today; 2004 Aug; 48(7):3, 9. PubMed ID: 15500273
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Uncovering value in the Medicare+Choice marketplace.
    Ahl D
    Manag Care Q; 2002; 10(2):47-51. PubMed ID: 12148482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. ERISA update: the Supreme Court Texas decision and other recent developments.
    Butler PA
    State Coverage Initiat Issue Brief; 2004 Aug; 5(2):1-7. PubMed ID: 15298011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The two faces of gag provisions: patients and physicians in a bind.
    Brand GS; Munoz GM; Nichols MG; Okata MU; Pitt JB; Seager S
    Yale Law Policy Rev; 1998; 17():249-80. PubMed ID: 16437824
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Federal Employees Health Benefits Act: health plan for federal employees denied contract action under federal law--Empire HealthChoice Assurance Inc. v. McVeigh.
    Gabos K
    J Law Med Ethics; 2005; 33(3):617-20. PubMed ID: 16240744
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.