CAP诉Heckler和HCFA对TEFRA法规的修改。

Pathologist Pub Date : 1984-10-01
J R Bierig, J C Dechene
{"title":"CAP诉Heckler和HCFA对TEFRA法规的修改。","authors":"J R Bierig,&nbsp;J C Dechene","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although the Court of Appeals did not invalidate the Health Care Financing Administration's TEFRA regulations, HCFA did make favorable changes in the regulations in response to the College's lawsuit. Here, the authors detail the important areas in which HCFA reversed its position during the course of the litigation, and describe other aspects of the suit.</p>","PeriodicalId":80113,"journal":{"name":"Pathologist","volume":"38 10","pages":"661-3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1984-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CAP v. Heckler and HCFA's modification of TEFRA regulations.\",\"authors\":\"J R Bierig,&nbsp;J C Dechene\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although the Court of Appeals did not invalidate the Health Care Financing Administration's TEFRA regulations, HCFA did make favorable changes in the regulations in response to the College's lawsuit. Here, the authors detail the important areas in which HCFA reversed its position during the course of the litigation, and describe other aspects of the suit.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":80113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pathologist\",\"volume\":\"38 10\",\"pages\":\"661-3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1984-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pathologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pathologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管上诉法院没有宣布医疗融资管理局的TEFRA法规无效,但HCFA确实对该法规做出了有利的修改,以回应该学院的诉讼。在这里,作者详细介绍了HCFA在诉讼过程中改变其立场的重要领域,并描述了诉讼的其他方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
CAP v. Heckler and HCFA's modification of TEFRA regulations.

Although the Court of Appeals did not invalidate the Health Care Financing Administration's TEFRA regulations, HCFA did make favorable changes in the regulations in response to the College's lawsuit. Here, the authors detail the important areas in which HCFA reversed its position during the course of the litigation, and describe other aspects of the suit.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信