The Experts below are selected from a list of 20475 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Georgios Leloudas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cyber Risks, Autonomous Operations and Risk Perceptions: Is a New Liability Paradigm Required?
'Bloomsbury Academic', 2021Co-Authors: Georgios LeloudasAbstract:This book chapter highlights that the technological development and social acceptability of autonomous transport systems relies on the effective protection of IT systems that manage and control their safety- and security- functions. This is because the ripple effects of cyber breaches on board vessels go beyond the immediate financial loss and/or personal injuries and create a crisis of trust in new technologies that are currently developed. Unlike physical risks, cyber risks are borderless in nature and come with an inherent difficulty in identifying the perpetrator and the means of attack. Such characteristics have the potential to amplify social reactions in the aftermath of accidents and can arguably lead to the blacklisting of technologies that rely on them. As such, the paper argues that a change of Liability paradigm might be required to manage cyber risks in the transport sector as the traditional system of streamlining risks via operators might come under pressure especially in cases of high-impact, orchestrated cyber attacks. In that respect, any Future Liability system regarding cyber risks shall not be decided in isolation but shall consider the autonomy of operations and its social acceptance
-
Cyber Risks, Autonomous Operations and Risk Perceptions
'Bloomsbury Academic', 2021Co-Authors: Georgios LeloudasAbstract:This book chapter highlights that the technological development and social acceptability of autonomous transport systems relies on the effective protection of IT systems that manage and control their safety- and security- functions. This is because the ripple effects of cyber breaches on board vessels go beyond the immediate financial loss and/or personal injuries and create a crisis of trust in new technologies that are currently developed. Unlike physical risks, cyber risks are borderless in nature and come with an inherent difficulty in identifying the perpetrator and the means of attack. Such characteristics have the potential to amplify social reactions in the aftermath of accidents and can arguably lead to the blacklisting of technologies that rely on them. As such, the paper argues that a change of Liability paradigm might be required to manage cyber risks in the transport sector as the traditional system of streamlining risks via operators might come under pressure especially in cases of high-impact, orchestrated cyber attacks. In that respect, any Future Liability system regarding cyber risks shall not be decided in isolation but shall consider the autonomy of operations and its social acceptance
Christopher M Burkle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the advance of the retail health clinic market the Liability risk physicians may potentially face when supervising or collaborating with other professionals
Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2011Co-Authors: Christopher M BurkleAbstract:The first retail health clinic opened in Minnesota in 2001 after the frustration a father, and Future MinuteClinic cofounder, experienced during a long wait at an urgent care center for treatment of his son’s strep throat.1 CVS Caremark Corporation, the largest retail pharmacy in the United States, acquired MinuteClinic in 2006, further strengthening the foothold of retail health care clinics throughout the country. During the first 5 years, the industry added only 29 clinics before rapidly increasing by more than 10-fold between 2006 and 2008.2 By 2008, the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, had also entered the retail clinic market, adding to the almost 1000 clinics at that time.1 This accelerated trend reversed in 2009, reflected by the industry closing approximately 5% of outlets that year.2 As early as 2007, significant Future growth in the market was expected, with predictions of up to 6000 clinics by the end of 2012.3 Despite this early optimism, as of June 2011, only a total of 1227 retail clinics are now in operation, slightly up from 1197 reported in February 2010.2-5 Although the overall profitability of these clinics has been questioned, recent health care reform efforts are forecast to increase consumer demand for retail health clinic services well into the Future.2,3,6 A combination of newly insured individuals after implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) with an ongoing shortage of primary care physicians may lead to increased retail clinic use.3 The difficulty in access to health care practitioners that the newly insured may experience has raised fears that they will seek Future care in expensive emergency department settings.2 A 2010 report exploring ways to reduce Future health care costs in New York State argued that expanding access to retail health clinics could help reduce health care expenditures by $350 million between 2011 and 2020.2 To sustain economic viability, retail health clinic practice models largely rely on nonphysician practitioners to provide care. State regulations vary on the degree of physician oversight these practitioners require. With the predicted increased demand for care provided by retail clinics, the number of physicians who may be involved with supervising or collaborating with these practitioners will likely increase as well. Although no reported malpractice Liability claim has been filed against a retail health clinic or their practitioners to date, physicians may find themselves at greater risk in the Future. This commentary first describes the current financial and practice models in today’s retail health clinic environment. This sets the foundation for exploring the potential Future Liability risk impacting physicians contracted to oversee the care provided in the retail health clinic sector.
Robert D. Hanser - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
10.1177/0032885502238681THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2002Hanser / INMATE SUICIDE IN PRISONS INMATE SUICIDE IN PRISONS: AN ANALYSIS OF LEGAL Liability
2016Co-Authors: Robert D. HanserAbstract:Case law pertaining to prison suicide Liability in Section 1983 civil lawsuits shows several trends in Future Liability considerations. Supreme Court decisions regarding deliberate indifference standards, as set forth in Estelle v. Gamble, are compared with present deliberate indifference standards produced by the Farmer v. Brennan ruling. Although some researchers have hailed the Farmer decision as a potential benefit to plaintiffs in prison suicide cases, such claims do not appear to hold merit. The effects of the Farmer decision on Section 1983 prison suicide litigation have created difficul-ties in proving suicide Liability as a violation of constitutionally established civil rights. Suicide among the inmate prison population occurs at a rate much higher than that of the civilian population. Studies show that suicide is a leading cause of death among inmates throughout the United States (Robertson, 1993). Research has provided results that overwhelmingly support the idea that inmate suicide should be a serious consideration for custodial staff. Although inmate suicide rates stabilize as the length of time served increases
Alfred Lehar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
measuring systemic risk a risk management approach
Journal of Banking and Finance, 2005Co-Authors: Alfred LeharAbstract:This paper proposes a new method to measure and monitor the systemic risk in a banking system. Standard tools that regulators require banks to use for their internal risk management are applied at the level of the banking system to measure the risk of the regulator's portfolio. Using a sample of international banks from 1988 until 1999, I estimate correlations between bank asset portfolios and compute different measures of systemic risk. The portfolio aspect of the regulator's deposit insurance Liability is explicitly considered and the methodology allows a comparison of sub-samples from different countries. Correlations, bank asset volatility, and bank capitalization increase for North American and somewhat for European banks, while Japanese banks face deteriorating capital levels and increasing volatility of their asset portfolios. In the sample period, the North American banking system gains stability while the Japanese banking sector becomes more fragile. The expected Future Liability of the regulator varies substantially over time and is especially high during the Asian crisis starting in 1997. Further analysis shows that the Japanese banks contribute most to the volatility of the regulator's Liability at that time. Larger and more profitable banks have lower systemic risk and additional equity capital reduces systemic risk only for banks that are constrained by regulatory capital requirements.
-
measuring systemic risk a risk management approach
Journal of Banking and Finance, 2005Co-Authors: Alfred LeharAbstract:Abstract This paper proposes a new method to measure and monitor the risk in a banking system. Standard tools that regulators require banks to use for their internal risk management are applied at the level of the banking system to measure the risk of a regulator’s portfolio. Using a sample of international banks from 1988 until 2002, I estimate the dynamics and correlations between bank asset portfolios. To obtain measures for the risk of a regulator’s portfolio, I model the individual liabilities that the regulator has to each bank as contingent claims on the bank’s assets. The portfolio aspect of the regulator’s Liability is explicitly considered and the methodology allows a comparison of sub-samples from different countries. Correlations, bank asset volatility, and bank capitalization increase for North American and somewhat for European banks, while Japanese banks face deteriorating capital levels. In the sample period, the North American banking system gains stability while the Japanese banking sector becomes more fragile. The expected Future Liability of the regulator varies substantially over time and is especially high during the Asian crisis starting in 1997. Further analysis shows that the Japanese banks contribute most to the volatility of the regulator’s Liability at that time. Larger and more profitable banks have lower systemic risk and additional equity capital reduces systemic risk only for banks that are constrained by regulatory capital requirements.
Farringer, Deborah R. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Computer Made Me Do It: Is There a Future for False Claims Act Liability Against Electronic Health Record Vendors?
Belmont Digital Repository, 2018Co-Authors: Farringer, Deborah R.Abstract:Since the advent of the movement toward the use of electronic medical records, an axiom in the promotion of electronic health records (EHRs) has been the idea that the use of EHRs will reduce medical errors. Certainly, there are countless examples of how technology can improve the health care experience and aid providers in reducing medical errors, including errors of medication administration, medication management, access to decision support tools, telemedicine, immediate access to diagnostic tests and other clinical information and treatment results—just to name a few. Even with such improvements, however, EHRs have not entirely eliminated medical errors and new technology has in fact created its own challenges and issues that might lead to Liability in a different way. As the use of EHRs proliferates, so too does the reliance of healthcare workers on the systems themselves and the inevitable blame game wherein an individual claims that whatever errors occurred were the result of “the computer” or the “system” that dictated the manner in which the care was provided or the manner in which the services were reimbursed. Ultimately, this “blame game” leads all to ask the question—whose fault is that? Can one blame the EHR vendor? To the extent that the answer may in fact be “Yes,” and the EHR vendor is at fault, are such claims easy to maintain? Historically, providers and other purchasers of EHRs have had little leverage against EHR vendors. One of the primary challenges arises out of the contract between the provider-purchaser and the EHR vendor. Ultimately, the purchase or licensing of an EHR system is actually just the purchase or licensing of software and, as such, the contracts resemble standard software licensing agreements, replete with disclaimers of implied and express warranties and “hold-harmless” or indemnification clauses that protect the vendor from third party Liability. Recent litigation—including one particular case involving the federal government’s allegations of fraud—has started to erode the disconnect between the potential responsibility of the EHR vendor and the ability to hold the vendor actually liable for its actions related to its software. On May 31, 2017, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a $155 million settlement with eClinicalWorks (eCW), one of the nation’s largest electronic health records vendors, to resolve a False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit in which the DOJ alleged that eCW caused the submission of false claims for federal incentive payments made under the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program. This settlement is unique not only because of the rarity of settlements or judgments against an entity based on an allegation that the falsity was in causing another to submit a false claim—as opposed to an action against an entity that has falsely filed its own claim and received payment directly—but also because it is one of the first of its kind against an EHR vendor. Following this case, many are wondering whether this settlement with eCW stands alone as an example of the government simply snaring one “bad actor,” or if this settlement is indicative of what might lie ahead for EHR vendors under the FCA. Will the FCA be a new tool under which EHR vendors are going to be held responsible for the role that their software might play in the delivery of care or the billing and collection of services rendered? Indeed, many in the information technology industry took note of this settlement and have speculated that this may not be a singular incident. Farzad Mostahsari—former National Coordinator for Health IT—stated, “Let me be plain-spoken. eClinicalWorks is not the only EHR vendor who flouted certification/misled customers[.] Other vendors better clean up.” Is Mr. Mostahsari correct and this could be a sign of things to come if EHR vendors are not careful about their actions? This Article will examine the existing eCW settlement agreement, along with other case law against EHR vendors, to determine whether this settlement is simply an outlier among FCA cases, meant only to punish particularly egregious behavior, or the beginning of a new era of FCA activity akin to other industries, like the pharmaceutical industry. Part II of this Article will provide a brief history of the FCA and the instances in which the DOJ has utilized provisions under the law against entities that or individuals who cause another to submit a false claim or make a material, false record. It will further review the types of cases outside of the FCA context that have been filed against EHR vendors since providers began more widespread adoption of EHR systems, especially after the enactment of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and the EHR Incentive Program. Part III will then study the eCW case in more detail, examining the actions that led to the settlement and determine whether such actions are an indication of a new era of FCA cases and EHR vendor Liability. Part III will additionally examine existing case law against EHR vendors to determine whether any patterns can be gleaned from the cases that will predict the continued use of the FCA as an enforcement tool against EHR vendors. In Part IV, this Article will argue that, although the eCW case is based on unique facts, it is likely that EHR vendors will face other FCA cases as the healthcare industry places increasing responsibility and reliance on electronic systems. These suits will likely include allegations of fraud arising not only out of the EHR Incentive Program but also the submission of claims more generally. Unlike in other FCA cases involving entities that do not contract directly with the federal government, however, it is unlikely that the federal government will be able to realize as much success or generate the same type of monetary rewards against EHR vendors as it has against the pharmaceutical industry because of the distinctions between these two disparate sectors of the health care industry. Finally, the Article will conclude by providing some thoughts on the impact of the eCW settlement agreement, which puts the EHR industry on notice regarding the potential for Future Liability
