MENU
Under the doctrine of corporate negligence, a health plan and its physician administrators may be held directly liable to patients or providers for failing to investigate adequately the competence of healthcare providers whom it employs or with whom it contracts, particularly where the health plan actually provides healthcare services or restricts the patient's/enrollee's choice of physician.
Suggested Answer: A
Get Premium AHM-520 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
10 comments · newest first
PR
Princess
1 year ago
False! I don't think that's how it works.
EV
Eveline
1 year ago
This makes sense, accountability is key!
AR
Arlette
1 year ago
Wait, really? I thought it was just the providers who were liable.
DA
Darrel
1 year ago
Totally agree with this statement.
DU
Dudley
1 year ago
That's true, they can be held liable!
JU
Juan
1 year ago
I think changing the CIR-level value for the best-effort queue to 1 might be the way to go, but I'm not 100% sure. I'll double-check the options.
JA
Jaime
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused on the differences between the node roles. I'll need to review my notes to make sure I understand the key responsibilities of each one before I can confidently answer this.
JO
Joana
1 year ago
I feel like training access might not be as critical in driving value compared to the security or innovation options.
MA
Margurite
1 year ago
This question seems straightforward, I think I can handle it.
GE
Germaine
1 year ago
Okay, I think I've got this. If the company buys back shares, that will reduce the number of shares outstanding, so the "number of shares in issue" should decrease. And with the same earnings but fewer shares, the dividend per share should also go down. The gearing based on book value should decrease too, since the debt is staying the same but the equity is going down. I'm pretty confident I can identify the 3 correct answers here.