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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1603858)

  • 1. Quality assurance implications of federal peer review laws. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the National Practitioner Data Bank.
    Snelson E
    Qual Assur Util Rev; 1992; 7(1):2-11. PubMed ID: 1603858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Is HCQIA (Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986) protecting peer review from antitrust claims?
    Cross LL
    Healthspan; 1993 Jun; 10(6):11-3. PubMed ID: 10127301
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Austin v. McNamara: antitrust immunity for peer review under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act.
    Herzog JP; Fisher DR
    Med Staff Couns; 1993; 7(2):55-61. PubMed ID: 10183844
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The National Practitioner Data Bank: the first 18 months.
    Puryear MA; Politzer RM; Anderson J; Mullan F
    Physician Exec; 1993; 19(1):13-7. PubMed ID: 10125933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Legal aspects of peer review. Patrick v Burget in the U.S. Supreme Court: its impact on peer review.
    Couch JB
    Qual Assur Util Rev; 1988 May; 3(2):59-60. PubMed ID: 2980931
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer review immunity: history, operation, and recent decisions--has HCQIA accomplished its goals?
    Cassidy MA
    Health Care Law Mon; 2002 May; ():3-9. PubMed ID: 12436737
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Patrick v. Burget; will the state action doctrine protect bad faith peer review?
    Healthspan; 1988 Feb; 5(2):20-2. PubMed ID: 10288650
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Adapting to the National Practitioner Data Bank: perspectives for physicians.
    Gagliano RD; Butler DL
    Med Staff Couns; 1991; 5(4):1-9. PubMed ID: 10114111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA).
    Wecht CH
    Leg Med; 1991; ():269-85. PubMed ID: 1821897
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Antitrust immunity granted in a far-reaching peer review case. Austin v. McNamara.
    Kadzielski MA
    Health Prog; 1993; 74(1):19, 29. PubMed ID: 10183820
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peer review, hearing requirements, and antitrust: maximizing Federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act compliance and immunity.
    Snelson EA
    J Med Assoc Ga; 1992 Sep; 81(9):495-7. PubMed ID: 1402428
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Legal aspects of the medical staff peer review process. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986--boon or bane?
    Couch JB
    Qual Assur Util Rev; 1988 Feb; 3(1):24-6. PubMed ID: 2980922
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Hospital and doctors granted antitrust immunity in important peer review lawsuit. Austin v. McNamara.
    Kadzielski MA
    Health Care Law Newsl; 1993 Feb; 8(2):8-12. PubMed ID: 10183829
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Federal antitrust jurisdiction in peer review cases: the Pinhas decision.
    Busey RC
    Hosp Law Newsl; 1991 Nov; 9(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 10183560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The value of external peer review after the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and Patrick v. Burget.
    Couch JB; Kauffman A; Merry M
    Qual Assur Util Rev; 1989 Aug; 4(3):86-8. PubMed ID: 2535582
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act in the courts: fast-acting cure for physician peer review headaches?
    Donovan RE
    J Health Hosp Law; 1995; 28(5):257-68, 312. PubMed ID: 10156292
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peer review.
    Livingston EH; Harwell JD
    Am J Surg; 2001 Aug; 182(2):103-9. PubMed ID: 11574078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Austin v. McNamara: immunity from suit under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act.
    Chenen AR
    Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(4):49-51. PubMed ID: 10107512
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The peer review privilege: a dying cause?
    McKinney P
    J Health Hosp Law; 1992 Jul; 25(7):201-11, 215. PubMed ID: 10123592
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Federal laws govern the conduct of peer review.
    Devlin MM
    Am J Med Qual; 1992; 7(3):88-90. PubMed ID: 1493383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.