Fail to understand the relationship between patients and medical directorships

[NewHopeR]

Would you like to give me a grammatical analysis for this?

Context:

"Specifically, Hamot identified physicians who referred a high volume of patients and/or had potential to refer a high volume of patients for special treatment and offered remuneration to them in the guise of sham contracts for medical directorships or other similar personal service arrangements," according to the lawsuit.

 

[Tdol]

It means the gave them positions as directors, but not genuine positions, as a way of paying them for referring patients. This is, presumably, trying to get round restrictions on paying them directly to refer.

 

[NewHopeR]

It means the gave them positions as directors, but not genuine positions, as a way of paying them for referring patients. This is, presumably, trying to get round restrictions on paying them directly to refer.

Is it possible that the sham contracts are between the physicians of two hispitals (Medicor Associates Inc—and its affiliate Flagship Cardiac, Vascular, and Thoracic Surgery (CVTS)—and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Hamot (formerly known as Hamot Medical Center) ?

More context:

Dr Tullio Emanuele, who worked at Medicor and Hamot Medical Center from 2001 to 2005, filed the suit and claims that Medicor engaged in illegal "kickbacks" with Hamot Medical Center and referred cardiac patients to the hospital. In the lawsuit, it is alleged that Hamot signed contracts with Medicor and Flagship CVTS, valued at $75 000 per physician and as high as $525 000 per year, and the doctors would refer patients in need of medical procedures to Hamot Medical Center.

"Specifically, Hamot identified physicians who referred a high volume of patients and/or had potential to refer a high volume of patients for special treatment and offered remuneration to them in the guise of sham contracts for medical directorships or other similar personal service arrangements," according to the lawsuit.



See even more context, click:


theheart.org: trusted cardiology news and opinions

 

[JohnParis]

"Is it possible that the sham contracts are between the physicians of two hispitals (sic)"

No, the contracts were between the hospital(s) and several different physicians.

 

[NewHopeR]

"Is it possible that the sham contracts are between the physicians of two hispitals (sic)"

No, the contracts were between the hospital(s) and several different physicians.

Thank you.

In the context ("Specifically, Hamot identified physicians who referred a high volume of patients and/or had potential to refer a high volume of patients for special treatment and offered remuneration to them in the guise of sham contracts for medical directorships or other similar personal service arrangements," according to the lawsuit. )

Who offered remuneration to them (whom?)?

 

[JohnParis]

Who offered remuneration to them?
Hamot, the Western Pennsylvania Hospital chain, offered payments to physicians.

 

[NewHopeR]

Who offered remuneration to them?
Hamot, the Western Pennsylvania Hospital chain, offered payments to physicians.

Got it.
Thank you.

PS. I think the exact meaning of "identified" has boggled me. What does it mean?

 

[JohnParis]

As used in your example, identified means: single out, pick out, spot, point out, pinpoint.

The hospital singled out (picked out, spotted, pointed out, pinpointed) physicians to whom they would make payments...

 

[NewHopeR]

As used in your example, identified means: single out, pick out, spot, point out, pinpoint.

The hospital singled out (picked out, spotted, pointed out, pinpointed) physicians to whom they would make payments...

A cool usage.

Like a fly bites an egg with cracks on its shell?

 

[JohnParis]

A cool usage.

Like a fly bites an egg with cracks on its shell?

That is an odd saying. What does it mean?

 

[NewHopeR]

As used in your example, identified means: single out, pick out, spot, point out, pinpoint.

The hospital singled out (picked out, spotted, pointed out, pinpointed) physicians to whom they would make payments...

A cool usage.

Like a fly bites an egg with cracks on its shell?


(Misoperation. Mod please remove the thread)

 

[5jj]

(Misoperation. Mod please remove the thread)

I don't know what you mean by 'misoperation'. If you are asking us to delete this thread, I am afarid the answer is 'no'. We never delete threads when people have taken the time and trouble to answer questions.

 

[NewHopeR]

I don't know what you mean by 'misoperation'. If you are asking us to delete this thread, I am afarid the answer is 'no'. We never delete threads when people have taken the time and trouble to answer questions.

That "misoperation..please remove..." itself is indeed a misoperation, because I've mistaken the post as a new thread when it appeared in the second page. Such mistake sometimes has been made by me in some forums in China.

Thank you for further explaining the forum rule.

PS. a little question remains to be solved:

That "identified" - "picked out" thing was carried out purposed by the hospital in the disguise of sham contracts for their private benefits?

 

[Barb_D]

The hospital identified/selected/chose the doctors that the hospital thought would be a good source of patients. They can't pay doctors for making those referrals. Instead, they offered these doctors fake contracts as "director of X" and paid them for this "job" in exchange for the referrals to their hospital.

 

[NewHopeR]

The hospital identified/selected/chose the doctors that the hospital thought would be a good source of patients. They can't pay doctors for making those referrals. Instead, they offered these doctors fake contracts as "director of X" and paid them for this "job" in exchange for the referrals to their hospital.

Thank you Barb.
You've made the situation crystal clear.


Is this the main point of the article? The doctors have violated the Stark Act and then violated the False Claims Act.