type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' December 7, 2005\n\n\n\n\nFinancial Management\n\nFY 2004 DoD Superfund\nTransactions\n(D-2006-035)\n\n\n\n\n Department of Defense\n Office of Inspector General\n\n Constitution of\n the United States\n\n A Regular Statement of Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public\n Money shall be published from time to time.\n Article I, Section 9\n\x0c Additional Copies\n\n To obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Web site of the Inspector\n General of the Department of Defense at http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports or\n contact the Secondary Reports Distribution Unit, Audit Followup and Technical\n Support at (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or fax (703) 604-8932.\n\n Suggestions for Future Audits\n\n To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact Audit Followup and\n Technical Support at (703) 604-8940 (DSN 664-8940) or fax (703) 604-8932.\n Ideas and requests can also be mailed to:\n\n ODIG-AUD (ATTN: AFTS Audit Suggestions)\n Inspector General of the Department of Defense\n 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)\n Arlington, VA 22202-4704\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms\nCEFMS Corps of Engineers Financial Management System\nEPA Environmental Protection Agency\n\x0c INSPECTOR GENERAL\n DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE\n 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE\n ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-4704\n\n\n\n\n December 7,2005\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)\n AUDITOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY\nSUBJECT: Audit Report on FY 2004 DoD Superfund Transactions\n (Report No. D-2006-035)\n\n We are providing this report for your information and use. No written response to\nthis report was required, and none were received. Therefore, we are publishing this report\nin final form.\n We appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff. Questions should be directed\nto James L. Kornides at (6 14) 75 1- 1400, extension 2 11, or Mr. John K. Issel at (6 14)\n75 1- 1400, extension 2 12. See Appendix B for the report distribution. The team members\nare listed inside the back cover.\n By direction of the Deputy Inspector General for Auditing:\n\n\n\n ~aul#~ranetto,CPA\n Assistant Inspector General\n Defense Financial Auditing\n Service\n\x0c Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense\nReport No. D-2006-035 December 7, 2005\n (Project No. D2005-D000FJ-0142)\n\n FY 2004 DoD Superfund Transactions\n\n Executive Summary\n\nWho Should Read This Report and Why? DoD personnel responsible for managing\nfunds provided to DoD from the Superfund should read this report. It discusses the\nappropriateness of payments, obligations, and reimbursements or other uses of the\nSuperfund by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.\n\nBackground. The Environmental Protection Agency manages the Superfund, which is a\ntrust fund established by Congress to respond to hazardous waste emergencies and to\nfund the cleanup of hazardous waste. The Superfund pays for the cleanup of hazardous\nwaste when the responsible party either cannot be identified or will not perform the\ncleanup work and when a State will not assume responsibility. The Environmental\nProtection Agency has contracted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to manage the\ndesign and construction of cleanup sites and to perform other related tasks which are paid\nfor with money from the Superfund. The Environmental Protection Agency issued\nprogram authority to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through interagency agreements.\n\nResults. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers properly recorded and supported the\nmajority of the payments, obligations, and reimbursements or other uses of the Superfund\nthat we reviewed. We audited 200 Superfund transactions that represented $22.4 million\nof the $82.1 million disbursed in FY 2004. Nine of the 200 transactions in our judgment\nsample were improperly coded during the data entry process. However, the district office\nthat was responsible for reviewing the transactions detected the errors and the erroneous\ntransactions were not charged to the Superfund. Management control programs,\ncompliance with applicable laws and regulations, and criteria governing Superfund\nfinancial transactions were effective in that we identified no material weaknesses, legal\nor regulatory noncompliance, or expenditures not meeting criteria.\n\nManagement Comments. We provided a draft of this report on October 25, 2005. No\nwritten response was required, and none was received. Therefore, we are publishing this\nreport in final form.\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\nExecutive Summary i\n\nBackground 1\n\nObjective 1\n\nManagers\xe2\x80\x99 Internal Control Program 2\n\nFinding\n Superfund Financial Transactions 3\n\nAppendixes\n A. Scope and Methodology 5\n Prior Coverage 6\n B. Report Distribution 7\n\x0cBackground\n Superfund Responsibilities. The Comprehensive Environmental Response,\n Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund was enacted by\n Congress on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and\n petroleum industries. The tax money collected was then deposited in a trust fund\n to pay for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.\n\n The Superfund trust fund provides the resources the Environmental Protection\n Agency (EPA) needs to respond to hazardous waste emergencies and to clean up\n hazardous waste when the responsible party either cannot be identified or will not\n perform the cleanup work and when a State will not assume responsibility.\n\n The EPA is the manager of the Superfund but the EPA has made agreements with\n the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) that call for the Corps to manage\n the design and implementation of remedial actions for cleanup of certain\n hazardous waste sites using money from the Superfund. During FY 2004,\n 33 Corps offices administered Superfund-related work.\n\n The EPA issued authority to the Corps to manage Superfund money through\n interagency agreements. During FY 2004, the Corps recorded $82.1 million in\n Superfund disbursements.\n\n Legislative Requirements. This audit was performed under the provisions of\n section 311(a), Satisfaction of Requirements, Public Law 108-375, \xe2\x80\x9cRonald W.\n Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.\xe2\x80\x9d The Act\n requires a periodic review of uses of the Superfund by the Department of Defense\n Office of Inspector General.\n\n\nObjective\n The audit objective was to determine whether the Corps properly administered the\n Superfund resources it received. Specifically, we determined whether the Corps\xe2\x80\x99\n payments, obligations, reimbursements, or other uses of the Fund were supported\n and accurately recorded, and whether disbursements and their related obligation\n transactions were properly charged to Superfund projects during FY 2004. Also,\n we assessed the management control program, compliance with applicable laws\n and regulations, and criteria governing Superfund projects. See Appendix A for a\n discussion of the audit scope and methodology.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0cManagers\xe2\x80\x99 Internal Control Program\n DoD Directive 5010.38, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control (MC) Program,\xe2\x80\x9d August 26, 1996,\n and DoD Instruction 5010.40, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control (MC) Program Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d\n August 28, 1996, require DoD organizations to implement a comprehensive\n system of management controls that provides reasonable assurance that programs\n are operating as intended and to evaluate the adequacy of the controls.\n\n Scope of the Review of the Management Control Program. We reviewed the\n adequacy of the Corps\xe2\x80\x99 management controls over the accounting and recording\n of Superfund disbursements and related obligations. Specifically, we reviewed\n the management controls established to ensure that Superfund disbursements and\n related obligations were reliable and completely recorded and that proper\n documentation was maintained to support the recorded transactions. We did not\n identify material weaknesses, and, therefore, did not assess the adequacy of\n management\xe2\x80\x99s self-evaluation.\n\n Adequacy of Management Controls. The Corps had established management\n controls over the disbursement and related obligations for 200 transactions at\n 10 sites reviewed. The disbursements and related obligations were in accordance\n with applicable laws and regulations. Management controls at the Corps sites\n visited were adequate in that no material management control weaknesses were\n identified.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c Superfund Financial Transactions\n The Corps properly recorded and supported the majority of the payments,\n obligations, and reimbursements or other uses of the Superfund that we\n reviewed. We audited 200 Superfund transactions that represented\n $22.4 million of the $82.1 million disbursed in FY 2004. Nine of the 200\n transactions in our sample were improperly coded during the data entry\n process. However, the district office that was responsible for reviewing\n the transactions detected the errors and the erroneous transactions were\n not charged to the Superfund. Management control programs, compliance\n with applicable laws and regulations, and criteria governing Superfund\n financial transactions were effective in that we identified no material\n weaknesses, legal or regulatory noncompliance, or expenditures not\n meeting criteria.\n\n\nAdministration of the Superfund\n Superfund Transactions. The Corps recorded all of its FY 2004 Superfund-\n related transactions in its centralized automated system, the Corps of Engineers\n Financial Management System (CEFMS). Each Corps site managing Superfund\n work retained the authorization and supporting documentation for its Superfund\n transactions. For FY 2004, CEFMS reflected 7,728 disbursement transactions,\n worth $82.1 million, that were made from 33 Corps administrative sites using\n Superfund monies.\n\n We judgmentally selected 200 disbursement and related obligation transactions,\n worth $22.4 million, from the 10 administering sites that were responsible for the\n selected transactions. As part of the audit, we visited the 10 sites and obtained\n and audited the applicable authorizing and supporting documentation.\n\n Disbursement and Obligation Transactions. For 191 of 200 transactions, the\n Corps properly charged the Superfund. The transactions were properly\n authorized and had adequate support documentation.\n\n At the Engineer Research and Development Center (Waterways), Vicksburg,\n Mississippi, 9 transactions (totaling $13,633.44) out of 20 transactions (totaling\n $35,720.69) were miscoded in CEFMS. The errors were related to work the\n Corps\xe2\x80\x99 Baltimore District had requested from the Waterways research facility in\n support of a non-Superfund EPA project. The work was not Superfund-related\n but was funded through a Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request which was\n similar to the way Waterways receives Superfund work. Waterways personnel\n erroneously coded it as Superfund-related in CEFMS.\n\n As the Baltimore District personnel began to process the transactions from\n Waterways, they recognized that Waterways had incorrectly charged the non-\n Superfund work to the Superfund in CEFMS. The error was detected as part of\n Baltimore District\xe2\x80\x99s internal control review process, and the transactions were\n corrected before any charges were sent to EPA. As a result, there was no effect\n on the Superfund.\n 3\n\x0c In general, although miscoding of the nine transactions occurred, we concluded\n internal controls were adequate. We believe an appropriate level of internal\n control existed at the Baltimore District to verify that only Superfund work was\n charged to the Superfund and that adequate internal controls were in place to\n ensure the appropriateness of charges to the Superfund.\n\n There were no other errors in the transactions we reviewed. The table\n summarizes results of our sample with data on the number of Corps transactions\n reviewed.\n\n\n\n Results of Review\n\n Sample Sample Sample Error\n Location Size Errors Value Value\n in thousands\n Baltimore 20 0 $ 2,427 $0\n New York 20 0 4,150 0\n Philadelphia 20 0 3,800 0\n New England 20 0 4,936 0\n Seattle 20 0 885 0\n Nashville 20 0 587 0\n Jacksonville 20 0 2,046 0\n Mobile 20 0 670 0\n Los Angeles 20 0 2,883 0\n Waterways 20 9 36 14\n\n Total 200 9 $22,420 $14\n\n\nConclusion\n We identified miscoded transactions, but the errors were all corrected by the\n Corps prior to charging the Superfund. The policies, procedures, and controls\n established by the Corps effectively managed the Superfund disbursement and\n obligation transactions we examined. We did not identify instances of\n noncompliance with the laws and regulations governing Superfund transactions.\n We did not identify indications of weaknesses in applying the criteria governing\n Superfund projects. This report contains no recommendations.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cAppendix A. Scope and Methodology\n The CEFMS database reflected 7,728 Superfund disbursement transactions, with\n a value of $82.1 million, for FY 2004. The transactions were administered by\n 33 Corps sites. We judgmentally selected 200 disbursement transactions with\n related obligations, valued at $22.4 million, which were administered at 10 Corps\n sites. We selected the 10 sites responsible for disbursing the higher amounts\n related to Superfund. We selected the 20 largest dollar value disbursements for\n each of the 10 selected sites. For each of the selected transactions, we obtained\n supporting documentation, such as contracts, contract modifications, interagency\n or interdistrict agreements, travel authorizations, purchase requests, receiving\n reports, contract invoices, and other appropriate documents. The documents were\n examined to determine that the documents supported the transactions and were\n properly authorized and recorded.\n\n\n\n Superfund Disbursement Transactions\n and Sample Size\n\n Total Value of\n Disbursement Value of Sample\n Location Transactions Transactions Transactions\n in thousands\n Baltimore 463 $ 2,752 $ 2,427\n New York 511 8,811 4,150\n Philadelphia 377 5,379 3,800\n New England 1,003 13,877 4,936\n Seattle 986 1,901 885\n Nashville 79 920 587\n Jacksonville 256 2,899 2,046\n Mobile 99 683 670\n Los Angeles 353 4,967 2,883\n Waterways 138 67 36\n\n Sample Total 4,265 $42,256 $22,420\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c We performed this audit from March 2005 through September 2005 in accordance\n with generally accepted government auditing standards.\n\n Use of Computer-Processed Data. We relied on computer-processed data\n extracted from CEFMS. Although we did not formally assess the reliability of the\n computer-processed data, the source documentation agreed with the computer-\n processed data used in the transactions reviewed. We did not find errors that\n would preclude the use of the computer-processed data to meet the audit\n objective.\n\n Government Accountability Office High-Risk Area. The Government\n Accountability Office has identified several high-risk areas in DoD. This report\n provides coverage of the Financial Management high-risk area.\n\n\nPrior Coverage\n During the last 5 years, the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG)\n has issued two reports discussing Superfund financial transactions. Unrestricted\n DoD IG reports can be accessed at http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports.\n\n\nDoD IG\n DoD IG Report No. D-2001-174, \xe2\x80\x9cFY 2000 DoD Superfund Financial\n Transactions,\xe2\x80\x9d August 16, 2001\n\n DoD IG Report No. D-2000-184, \xe2\x80\x9cFY 1999 DoD Superfund Financial\n Transactions,\xe2\x80\x9d August 31, 2000\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cAppendix B. Report Distribution\n\nOffice of the Secretary of Defense\nUnder Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer\n Deputy Chief Financial Officer\n Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget)\nDirector, Program Analysis and Evaluation\n\nDepartment of the Army\nAuditor General, Department of the Army\nCommander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\n\nDepartment of the Navy\nNaval Inspector General\nAuditor General, Department of the Navy\n\nDepartment of the Air Force\nAuditor General, Department of the Air Force\n\nCombatant Command\nCommander, U.S. Joint Forces Command\n Inspector General, U.S. Joint Forces Command\n\nNon-Defense Federal Organization\nOffice of Management and Budget\nAdministrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\nGovernment Accountability Office\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cCongressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and\n Ranking Minority Member\nSenate Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Committee on Armed Services\nSenate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs\nHouse Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Committee on Armed Services\nHouse Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management, Committee\n on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International\n Relations, Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations,\n and the Census, Committee on Government Reform\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cTeam Members\nThe Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Auditing of the Department of\nDefense, Defense Financial Auditing Service Directorate, prepared this report.\nPersonnel of the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense\nwho contributed to the report are listed below.\n\nPaul J. Granetto\nJames L. Kornides\nJohn K. Issel\nWalter J. Carney\nEric T. Thacker\nTerry D. Holdren\nJohn P. Frawley\nWilliam C. Blouvet\n\x0c'


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 11.1.2012
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 7/1
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) NR. 12/2012 AL COMISIEI
 din 10 ianuarie 2012
 de stabilire a valorilor forfetare de import pentru fixarea prețului de intrare pentru anumite fructe și legume
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1234/2007 al Consiliului din 22 octombrie 2007 de instituire a unei organizări comune a piețelor agricole și privind dispoziții specifice referitoare la anumite produse agricole („Regulamentul unic OCP”) (1),
 având în vedere Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 al Comisiei din 7 iunie 2011 de stabilire a normelor de aplicare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1234/2007 al Consiliului în sectorul fructelor și legumelor și în sectorul fructelor și legumelor procesate (2), în special articolul 136 alineatul (1),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 prevede, ca urmare a rezultatelor negocierilor comerciale multilaterale din cadrul Rundei Uruguay, criteriile pentru stabilirea de către Comisie a valorilor forfetare de import din țări terțe pentru produsele și perioadele menționate în partea A din anexa XVI la regulamentul respectiv.
 (2)
 Valoarea forfetară de import se calculează în fiecare zi lucrătoare, în conformitate cu articolul 136 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011, ținând seama de datele zilnice variabile. Prin urmare, prezentul regulament trebuie să intre în vigoare la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Valorile forfetare de import prevăzute la articolul 136 din Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 sunt stabilite în anexa la prezentul regulament.
 Articolul 2
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 10 ianuarie 2012.
 Pentru Comisie, pentru președinte
 José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
 Director general pentru agricultură și dezvoltare rurală
 (1) JO L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.
 (2) JO L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
 ANEXĂ
 Valorile forfetare de import pentru fixarea prețului de intrare pentru anumite fructe și legume
 (EUR/100 kg)
 Codul NC
 Codul țării terțe (1)
 Valoarea forfetară de import
 0702 00 00
 MA
 61,0
 TN
 101,1
 TR
 107,6
 ZZ
 89,9
 0707 00 05
 EG
 182,1
 TR
 156,6
 ZZ
 169,4
 0709 91 00
 EG
 208,4
 ZZ
 208,4
 0709 93 10
 MA
 64,4
 TR
 145,3
 ZZ
 104,9
 0805 10 20
 EG
 70,2
 MA
 59,3
 TR
 75,5
 ZZ
 68,3
 0805 20 10
 MA
 73,1
 ZZ
 73,1
 0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70, 0805 20 90
 IL
 70,8
 MA
 62,0
 TR
 79,5
 ZZ
 70,8
 0805 50 10
 MA
 126,4
 TR
 59,3
 ZZ
 92,9
 0808 10 80
 CA
 125,9
 US
 111,1
 ZA
 128,3
 ZZ
 121,8
 0808 30 90
 CN
 42,7
 US
 116,7
 ZZ
 79,7
 (1) Nomenclatura țărilor stabilită prin Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1833/2006 al Comisiei (JO L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Codul „ZZ” desemnează „alte origini”.


type: caselaw

text:
20.7.2013
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 C 207/61
 Sag anlagt den 8. maj 2013 — ZZ m.fl. mod EIB
 (Sag F-43/13)
 2013/C 207/106
 Processprog: fransk
 Parter
 Sagsøgere: ZZ m.fl. (ved advokat L. Levi)
 Sagsøgt: Den Europæiske Investeringsbank (EIB)
 Søgsmålets genstand og beskrivelse af tvisten
 Påstand om annullation af afgørelserne i lønsedlerne for februar 2013 om fastsættelse af en årlig tilpasning af lønningerne begrænset til 1,8 % for 2013 og annullation af de efterfølgende lønsedler. Endvidere en deraf følgende påstand om, at institutionen tilpligtes at betale erstatning for det økonomiske og ikke-økonomiske tab, der angiveligt er lidt.
 Sagsøgernes påstande
 —
 Annullation af afgørelsen i sagsøgernes lønsedler for februar 2013 om fastsættelse af en årlig tilpasning af lønningerne begrænset til 1,8 % for 2013 og følgelig annullation af lignende afgørelser i de efterfølgende lønsedler, og
 —
 om fornødent annullation af to orienteringsskrivelser, som EIB fremsendte til sagsøgerne den 5. februar 2013 og den 15. februar 2013.
 —
 EIB tilpligtes som erstatning for det økonomiske tab at betale hver sagsøger (i) restlønnen svarende til anvendelsen af den årlige tilpasning for 2013, dvs. en forhøjelse på 1,8 % for perioden fra den 1. januar 2013 til den 31. december 2013; (ii) restlønnen svarende til følgerne af anvendelsen af den årlige tilpasning på 1,8 % for 2013 på størrelsen af de lønninger, der betales fra januar 2014; (iii) morarenter af de skyldige restlønninger indtil fuld betaling af de skyldige beløb, idet satsen for de morarenter, der finder anvendelse, skal beregnes på grundlag af den af Den Europæiske Centralbank fastsatte rentesats for de vigtigste refinansieringstransaktioner i den pågældende periode, forhøjet med tre procentpoint og (v) erstatning som følge af tabt købekraft; Det samlede økonomiske tab er foreløbigt fastsat til 30 000 EUR pr. sagsøger.
 —
 EIB tilpligtes at betale hver sagsøger 1 000 EUR i erstatning for det ikke-økonomiske tab.
 —
 EIB tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.


type: wikipedia

text:
Liviu Ioan Stoiciu (n. 19 februarie 1950, comuna Dumbrava Roșie, Canton CFR, județul Neamț) este un poet, prozator și scriitor optzecist român.
 Debutul publicistic s-a produs, în 1967, cu versuri în pagina literară a ziarului regiunii Bacău, Steagul Roșu. În 1974 este prezentat ca poet în revista Familia de Ștefan Augustin Doinaș: „Liviu Ioan Stoiciu – Realul, ca plasmă poetică”.
 Debutul editorial cu ciclurile de versuri Balans în Caietul debutanților, 1977 (Editura Albatros, 1978) și Cantonul 248 în Caietul debutanților, 1978 (Editura Albatros, 1979).
 Volume de versuri publicate
 La fanion (Editura Albatros, 1980) – Premiul de debut al Uniunii Scriitorilor din România
 Inima de raze (Editura Albatros, 1982)
 Când memoria va reveni (Editura Cartea Românească, 1985)
 O lume paralelă (Editura Cartea Românească. 1989)
 Poeme aristocrate (Editura Pontica, 1991) – Premiul de poezie al Uniunii Scriitorilor din România
 Singurătatea colectivă (Editura Eminescu, 1996) – Premiul "Mihai Eminescu" al Academiei României, Premiul de poezie al Asociației Scriitorilor Profesioniști din România (ASPRO), Premiul "Poesis" ("Cea mai bună carte a anului 1996"), Premiul Uniunii Scriitorilor din Republica Moldova
 Ruinele poemului (Editura Pontica, 1997) – Marele Premiu al ASPRO, Marele Premiu al Festivalului Internațional de Poezie (ediția I, Oradea), Premiul pentru poezie pe anul 1997 – Superlativele Revistei "Cuvântul"
 Post-ospicii (Editura Axa, Seria "La Steaua - Poeți optzeciști", 1997) – Premiul Asociației Scriitorilor din București
 Poemul animal (Crepuscular) (Editura Călăuza, 2000)
 La plecare (Editura Vinea, 2003)
 Cantonul 248, antologie de versuri de autor (Editura Vinea, colecția „Scriitori Români Contemporani – Ediții Definitive”, 2005) – Premiul pentru Poezie al Revistei „Ateneu”
 pam-param-pam (adjudu vechi), concepție grafică și ilustrații de Vasile Angelache, Editura Muzeul Literaturii Române, 2006 – Premiul pentru Literatură al Revistei „Argeș”; Premiul Festivalului-concurs Internațional de Poezie „Avangarda XXII”, Bacău (ediția a VII-a, 2007).
 Craterul Platon (Editura Vinea, 2008) – Premiul pentru Poezie al Revistei „Observator cultural” (Ediția a III-a, 2009), volum nominalizat la Premiile Uniunii Scriitorilor. Volumul „Craterul Platon” a apărut într-o a doua ediție la Editura Vinea / Editura Integral, în 2016. A apărut, totodată, în 2016, și în franceză – „Le cratère Platon”, tradus de Sorin Barbu. Ambele volume au fost lansate la Paris, la Salon du livre, în 19 martie 2016.
 Pe prag / Vale-Deal (Editura Cartea Românească, 2010), volum nominalizat la Premiile Radio România Cultural și la Premiile Revistei „Observator cultural”
 Lanțul, antologie de versuri de autor (Editura Tipo Moldova, Iași, 2012, colecția Opera Omnia. Poezie contemporană)
 Substanțe interzise (Editura Tracus Arte, București, 2012, Colecția Neo), Premiul Cartea de Poezie a anului 2012 (acordat pe 15 ianuarie 2013 la ICR, la Gala Scriitorilor Tineri, ediția a III-a, președinte de juriu Eugen Simion); Premiul pentru Poezie al revistei „Mișcarea literară” (Bistrița, 27 februarie 2013, președinte de juriu Alex Goldiș); Volum nominalizat la Premiile USR; („Premiul Național pentru Poezie Mircea Ivănescu”, Sibiu, 13 iulie 2013, președinte de juriu Al. Cistelecan; premiu recuzat de Liviu Ioan Stoiciu) „Premiul Național pentru Poezie” (Târgu Jiu, în cadrul Atelierului Național de Poezie „Serile la Brădiceni”, 8 septembrie 2013, președinte de juriu Gh. Grigurcu); Premiul de excelență al Festivalului de poezie „Emil Botta” (Adjud, 15 septembrie 2013)
 Nous (Editura Limes, Cluj, 2015, Colecția Magister), volum nominalizat la Premiul Cartea Anului 2015 acordat de revista „România literară”; volum nominalizat și la Premiile USR.
 Opera Poetică, volumul I și II (Editura Paralela 45, 2016), prefață de Răzvan Voncu
 Născut în România / Born in Romania (Editura MTTLC.ro, București, 2014), antologie de poeme traduse în engleză de Leach Fritz și Ioana Bușe, colecția Contemporary Literature Press, Universitatea din București (http://editura.mttlc.ro/carti/Liviu%20Ioan%20Stoiciu.%20CLP.pdf
 Efecte 2.0, Editura Tracus Arte, 2017;
 Ajuns din urmă, Editura Junimea, 2017;
 Volum publicat în germană
 Das verderben der Schönheit, Editura Dionysos Boppard, 2020, Trad.Christian W. Schenk, ISBN 9781074943691
 Prezent în antologii
 Antologia poeziei generatiei '80 (coord. Alexandru Musina, Editura Vlasie, 1993);
 Streiflicht, Eine Auswahl zeitgenössischer rumänischer Lyrik, ins Deutsche übertragen von Christian W. Schenk, Dionysos Verlag, Kastellaun, 1994;
 Băutorii de absint (antologie de grup, în care apare alături de Traian T. Coșovei, Nichita Danilov, Ion Mureșan și Ioan Es. Pop, Editura Paralela 45, 2007);
 Cele mai frumoase poezii ale anului (coord. Alexandru Petria, Editura Adenium, 2014).
 PIETA- eine Anthologie der rumänischen Dichtung - Dionysos, Boppard/Germany 2018, Übersetzer und Herausgeber Christian W. Schenk.
 ROSARIEN: Rumänische Gegenwartslyrik 2020, 444 Seiten, Dionysos Boppard 2020, trad. Christian W. Schenk, ISBN 979-8649287029.
 Romane
 Femeia ascunsă (Asociația Scriitorilor din București și Editura Cartea Românească, 1997, Colecția „Biblioteca București”) – Marele Premiu „Alexandru Vlahuță” al Salonului literar Dragosloveni, Vrancea
 Grijania (Editura Paralela 45, 1999), volum nominalizat la Premiile Uniunii Scriitorilor, ASPRO și Asociației Scriitorilor din București — Premiul Național de Proză „Ion Creangă” (Humulești, Neamț)
 Undeva, la Sud-Est (Într-unu-s doi), Editura Cronica, 2001
 Romanul-basm (Trup și Suflet), Editura Dacia, 2002
 Vrăjmaș, Editura Polirom (Colecția Fiction Ltd.), 2014 — Premiul pentru „Cel mai valoros roman” (în cadrul Colocviilor romanului românesc contemporan, Alba Iulia, 2015; juriu: Irina Petraș, președinte, Ioan Holban, Virgil Podoabă, Daniel Cristea Enache). Premiu ex-aequo (cu Nora Iuga)
 A apărut în 2007, la Editura Paralela 45, în antologia intitulată Basme și povești mistice românești repovestite de Horia Gârbea, Doina Ruști și Liviu Ioan Stoiciu
 Memorialistică/publicistică
 Jurnalul unui martor (13-15 iunie 1990, Piața Universității, București), Editura Humanitas, 1992
 Jurnal stoic din anul Revoluției, urmat de Contrajurnal, Editura Paralela 45, 2002, volum nominalizat la Premiile Uniunii Scriitorilor și Premiile Asociației Scriitorilor din București
 Cartea zădărniciei (Convorbiri de sfârșit cu Al. Deșliu & „Inspirații” de început) – Editura Pallas, 2008
 Teatru
 Teatrul uitat (Editura Muzeul Literaturii Române, 2005) – Premiul pentru Dramaturgie al Uniunii Scriitorilor din România; Premiul pentru teatru al Zilelor Culturale „Poesis”, 2007.
 La Teatrul Național Radiofonic (Radio România Cultural) regizorul Gavriil Pinte a pus în scenă, în ianuarie 2007, spectacolul intitulat Ochii Arhanghelului din vis — o biografie poetică a lui Eminescu după un ciclu de poeme ale lui Liviu Ioan Stoiciu
 Premii și distincții (selectiv)
 Premiul pentru Debut-Poezie al Uniunii Scriitorilor din România (USR) pe anul 1980 (La fanion, Editura Albatros); Premiul pentru Poezie al USR pe anul 1991 (Poeme aristocrate, Editura Pontica); Premiul pentru Dramaturgie al USR pe anul 2005 (Teatrul uitat, Editura Muzeul Literaturii Române)
 Premiul „Mihai Eminescu” al Academiei Române pe anul 1996 (Singurătatea colectivă, Editura Eminescu)
 Premiile ASPRO (Asociația Scriitorilor Profesioniști din România) pe anii 1996 (Premiul pentru Poezie al ASPRO – Singurătatea colectivă) și 1997 (Marele Premiu al ASPRO – Ruinele Poemului, Editura Pontica)
 Premiul pentru Poezie al Uniunii Scriitorilor din Republica Moldova pe anul 1996 (Singurătatea colectivă).
 Premiile pentru Poezie ale Asociației Scriitorilor din București pe anii 1997 (Post-ospicii, Editura Axa) și 2000 (Poemul animal, Editura Călăuza)
 Meritul Cultural în grad de Ofițer, 2004
 Note
 Legături externe
 Poetul care a stat 73 de zile în fruntea Comitetului Provizoriu de Uniune Națională Vrancea, 23 aprilie 2014, Borcea Stefan, Adevărul
 http://tnr.srr.ro/program/program_arh.htm?d=2016-01-12
 http://www.cotidianul.ro/autor/liviu-ioan-stoiciu/
 http://alexandratataru.ro/destinul-unui-scriitor-vrancean-liviu-ioan-stoiciu-65/
 http://www.ziaruldevrancea.ro/politica/1588811867-un-pic-de-revolutie-la-focsani.html
 http://www.tncp.ro/despre-tncp/poezie-de-bucuresti-si-lecturi-de-poezie-la-fipb-2015#more-1488
 http://www.romlit.ro/tinereea_unui_demon
 http://www.teatrul-odeon.ro/stire/serile-de-poezie-si-jazz-ale-muzeului-national-al-literaturii-romane-2
 http://www.liviuioanstoiciu.ro/fi%C8%99a-biobibliografica/
 http://lege5.ro/Gratuit/gu2dqnrv/decretul-nr-33-2004-privind-conferirea-ordinului-meritul-cultural
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHR7v9JZFkA
 Poeți români contemporani
 Stoiciu, Liviu Ioan
 Poeți optzeciști
 Scriitori români în viață


text: b" DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &. HUMAN SERVICES \t Office of Inspector General\n\n\n Washington, D.C. 20201\n\n\n\n\n SIP 222010\n\nTO: \t Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n Administrator\n Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services\n\n\nFROM: Stuat1 Wright /S/\n Deputy Inspector General\n for Evaluation and Inspections\n\n\nSUBJECT: \t Memorandum Report: Questionable Billingfor Physician Services for Hospice\n Beneficiaries,OEI-02-06-00224 .\n\n\nThis memorandum report determines the extent of questionable hilling for physician services\nunder both Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B for hospice heneficim-ies in 2009. The\nMedicare hospice benefit allows a beneficiary with a terminal illness to forgo curative treatment\nfor the illness and instead receive pa:1lIative c'are,which is thereliefofpain and other\nuncomfortable symptoms. The number ofMedicare beneficiaries receiving hospice care has\nincreased significantly in recent years, from 729,000 in 2003 to over 1 million in 2008,1 In\naddition, concerns about the benefit have been raised, including a recent Office ofInspector\nGeneral (OIG) repOlt that found that 82 percent of hospice claims for beneficiaries residing in\nnursing facilities did not meet Medicare coverage requirements,2\n\nIn addition, during meetings with 010, CMS raised concerns specificalIy about physician billing\nfor hospice benefIciaries. It listed Part B billing for physician services as one ofthe top hospice\nissues that should he addressed. CMS noted that physician billing for hospice services is a\npotential vulnerability, given that Medicare pays for physician services through Part A or Part B,\ndepending on the physician's relationship with the hospice. CMS also noted that physicians may\nbe billing for services related to the terminal illness under Part B that hospices are also billing for\nunder Part A.\n\nWe found that questionable billing for Prot B physiCian services provided to hospice\nbeneficiaries amounted to nearly $566,000 in 2009. This meaiisthat Medicare paid this amount\nto physicians directly through Part B ror services related to a beneficiaris terminal illness, while\n\n\n1 Centers for Medioare & Medicaid Services (CMS) analysis of Medicare Health Cate Infonnation System data for\n2008 claims. Accessed at httl'2:l/www;cmsJjbs;gQv/center/hospice.asp on July 16, 2010. At: the time (lfthe Writing\nof this rCpolt, the most recent aVaile;ibledataiwere for 2008.\n2 OIG, MedicareHospice CarejorBenejicial'ies ihNur~ingFacilities: Compliance With MediCal'e Coverage\nRequirements, OEI-02-06-00221., Septempe~ 2009.\n\nOEH2-06-00224 Questionabfe BilHng fQr PhySician Services for Hospice Beneficiaries\n\x0cPage 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\n\nMedicare also paid for services from the same physician for the terminal illness under Part A.\nOne-third of these questionable claims were from Florida.\n\nAlthough we did not find that this problem is widespread, billing for physician services for\nhospice care is a potential program vulnerability given that Medicare may be billed under Part A\nand Part B. As such, we encourage CMS to continue to monitor this issue. In addition, we will\nrefer all of the questionable claims to CMS for appropriate action. We will provide this\ninformation in a separate memorandum.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nThe goals of hospice care are to help terminally ill beneficiaries continue life with minimal\ndisruption and to support beneficiaries\xe2\x80\x99 families and other caregivers throughout the process.\nThe care may be provided to individuals and their families in the home or other places of\nresidence, such as a skilled or other nursing facility. In 2008, over 1 million beneficiaries\nreceived Medicare hospice care at a cost of $11.2 billion. 3\n\nTo be eligible for Medicare hospice care, a beneficiary must be entitled to Part A of Medicare\nand be certified as having a terminal illness with a life expectancy of 6 months or less if the\ndisease runs its normal course. Upon a beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s election of hospice care, the hospice agency\nassumes the responsibility for medical care related to the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s terminal illness and\nrelated conditions. This care is palliative, rather than curative. It includes, among other things,\nnursing care, medical social services, home health aide (sometimes referred to as hospice aide)\nservices, medical supplies, and physician services. The beneficiary waives all rights to Medicare\npayment for services related to the curative treatment of the terminal condition or a related\ncondition but retains rights to Medicare payment for services to treat conditions unrelated to the\nterminal illness. 4\n\nThe Medicare hospice benefit has four levels of care, and each level has an all-inclusive, daily\nrate that is paid through Part A. The rate is paid to the hospice for each day that a beneficiary is\nin hospice care, regardless of the number of services furnished. The four levels of care are\nroutine home care, continuous home care, inpatient respite care, and general inpatient care.\nRoutine home care is the most common level of care. Appendix A provides detailed information\non hospice services, the four levels of care, and the payment rates.\n\nSome physician services relating to the terminal illness are paid separately, in addition to the\ndaily rate. 5 Medicare pays for these services through Part A or Part B, depending on the\n\n3\n CMS analysis of Medicare Health Care Information System data for 2008 claims. Accessed at\nhttp://www.cms.hhs.gov/center/hospice.asp on July 16, 2010. At the time of the writing of this report, the most\nrecent available data were for 2008.\n4\n 42 CFR \xc2\xa7 418.24(d).\n5 42 CFR \xc2\xa7 418.304. While the daily rate includes hospice medical director supervisory services and plan of care\n\nservices performed by the physician member of the hospice\xe2\x80\x99s interdisciplinary group, other physician services are\nbilled separately.\n\nOEI-02-06-00224 Questionable Billing for Physician Services for Hospice Beneficiaries\n\x0cPage 3 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\n\nphysician\xe2\x80\x99s relationship with the hospice. If the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s attending physician is an employee\nof or under contract with the hospice provider, Medicare pays the hospice for physician services\nunder Part A, and the hospice compensates the physician through salary or some other\narrangement. In these instances, the Part A hospice claim will include a code for physician\nservices in a line item separate from the daily rate.\n\nIf the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s attending physician is not an employee of or under contract with the hospice\nprovider, Medicare pays the physician for physician services under Part B. 6 In these instances,\nthe physician bills Medicare Part B directly for the physician services provided to the hospice\nbeneficiary. Physicians can include modifiers on their Part B claims. The GV modifier indicates\nthat the attending physician is not employed or paid under agreement by the patient\xe2\x80\x99s hospice\nprovider. The GW modifier indicates that the service is not related to the hospice patient\xe2\x80\x99s\nterminal condition. 7 In 2009, Medicare paid $165 million for Part B physician services for\nhospice beneficiaries. 8\n\nThis memorandum report is part of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s continuing work on Medicare hospice care. A series\nof previous OIG reports have focused on hospice care for beneficiaries residing in nursing\nfacilities. OIG found that 31 percent of Medicare hospice beneficiaries resided in nursing\nfacilities in 2006 and that 82 percent of hospice claims for these beneficiaries did not meet\nMedicare coverage requirements. 9 OIG also found that hospices most commonly provided\nnursing, home health aide, and medical social services to beneficiaries in nursing facilities,\nfurnishing an average of 4.2 visits per week for these 3 services combined. 10 Another report\nfound that, on average, beneficiaries in nursing facilities spent more time in hospice and were\nassociated with higher Medicare reimbursements than beneficiaries in other settings. 11 Lastly, a\nfourth OIG report found a number of cases in which the use of respite care for beneficiaries in\nnursing facilities may have been inappropriate; these cases were referred to CMS for corrective\naction. 12\n\nMETHODOLOGY\n\nWe based this memorandum report on an analysis of Part A and Part B claims for physician\nservices provided to hospice beneficiaries. To accomplish this, we extracted all Medicare Part A\n\n6 42 CFR \xc2\xa7 418.304(c).\n7 CMS, Medicare Claims Processing Manual, ch. 11 - Processing Hospice Claims, sections 40.1.3 and 50. Accessed\nat https://www.cms.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c11.pdf on August 31, 2010.\n8 OIG analysis of 2009 Part B physician service claims for hospice beneficiaries. This amount includes\n\nreimbursements for Part B physician services unrelated to hospice beneficiaries\xe2\x80\x99 terminal diagnoses.\n9 OIG, Medicare Hospice Care: Services Provided to Beneficiaries Residing in Nursing Facilities,\n\nOEI-02-06-00223, September 2009; OIG, Medicare Hospice Care for Beneficiaries in Nursing Facilities:\nCompliance With Medicare Coverage Requirements, OEI-02-06-00221, September 2009.\n10 OIG, Medicare Hospice Care: Services Provided to Beneficiaries Residing in Nursing Facilities,\n\nOEI-02-06-00223, September 2009.\n11 OIG, Medicare Hospice Care: A Comparison of Beneficiaries in Nursing Facilities and Beneficiaries in Other\n\nSettings, OEI-02-06-00220, December 2007.\n12 OIG, Hospice Beneficiaries\xe2\x80\x99 Use of Respite Care, OEI-02-06-00222, March 2008.\n\n\nOEI-02-06-00224 Questionable Billing for Physician Services for Hospice Beneficiaries\n\x0cPage 4 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\n\nhospice claims from CMS\xe2\x80\x99s National Claims History file (NCH) that included physician service\ndates in 2009. These services were provided by a physician who was an employee or under\ncontract with the hospice provider. The services were indicated by a code on the claim that was\nlisted separately from the daily hospice rate. Part A hospice claims typically cover a 1-month\nperiod but could be for shorter periods of time.\n\nWe identified the beneficiaries\xe2\x80\x99 Health Insurance Claim Numbers for each Part A claim and\nextracted these beneficiaries\xe2\x80\x99 Part B physician claims for 2009 from the NCH. For each\nbeneficiary, we compared the dates of service on the Part B claims to the time periods covered\nby the Part A hospice claims. We included in our analysis Part B claims with a date of service\nthat fell within the time period covered by a Part A hospice claim. We excluded from our\nanalysis any Part B claims that occurred on the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s first day in hospice care because the\nservices on these Part B claims may have been provided before the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s election of\nhospice care. For instance, a beneficiary may receive Part B physician services for a terminal\nillness in the morning, elect hospice care in the afternoon, and receive physician services under\nthe Part A hospice benefit later in the day. In this case, both physician services may be\nappropriate.\n\nWe then compared the physician and diagnosis of each Part B physician claim and its\ncorresponding Part A hospice claim by using the National Provider Identifiers and diagnosis\ncodes included on the claims. We excluded from our analysis claims in which the physician\nused the GW modifier indicating that the service provided was not related to the hospice\nbeneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s terminal condition and provided a diagnosis specific to the service billed which\ndiffered from the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s terminal diagnosis. We excluded these claims because physicians\nare allowed to bill Part B for services that are not related to a hospice beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s terminal\ncondition. 13\n\nWe identified instances in which a physician billed Part B for services provided to a hospice\nbeneficiary for his or her terminal illness while a hospice billed Part A for services by that same\nphysician for the same beneficiary and illness. In other words, the service date on the Part B\nclaim fell within the time period covered by the Part A claim and the physician and diagnosis on\nthe Part B physician claim matched the physician and diagnosis on the Part A claim. We\nconsidered these claims to be questionable. 14\n\nWe identified the physicians and hospices associated with these questionable claims. We also\ndetermined how often physicians included a GV modifier on the questionable claims. This\nmodifier is used to indicate that the attending physician is not employed or paid under agreement\nby the patient\xe2\x80\x99s hospice provider. In addition, we determined the reimbursement amounts of the\n\n\n13 We also excluded claims that had a Q5 or Q6 modifier, which indicates that the service was provided by a\nphysician substituting for the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s attending physician.\n14 Note that we considered Part B claims to be questionable when they fell within the same time period covered by\n\nthe Part A claim, not just the same date of the Part A line item. Physicians bill Part A or Part B based on their\nrelationship with the hospice, which is unlikely to change during the claim period.\n\nOEI-02-06-00224 Questionable Billing for Physician Services for Hospice Beneficiaries\n\x0cPage 5 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\n\nquestionable claims. We analyzed the claims to identify any discernable patterns in terms of\ngeography and diagnosis.\n\nLimitations\nFor a given beneficiary, we considered Part B claims to be questionable if they were from the\nsame physician, during the same time period, and for the same diagnosis as Part A claims. Based\non our analysis, we could not determine whether the questionable billing was the result of the\nphysician inappropriately billing Part B or the hospice inappropriately billing Part A. We based\nour results on the Part B claims, as this is the more conservative approach. Part B claims are for\none date of service while Part A claims usually cover a 1-month period. Part A claims often\ninclude more than one physician service per claim and therefore have higher reimbursement\ntotals per claim than Part B claims. We did not conduct a medical record review and did not\ndetermine whether services provided were medically necessary.\n\nRESULTS\n\nQuestionable Billing for Physician Services Provided to Hospice Beneficiaries Amounted to\nNearly $566,000 in 2009\nWe identified 9,272 questionable Part B claims for physician services provided to hospice\nbeneficiaries in 2009. These Part B claims are for services provided by the same physician for\nthe same time period as billed on the Part A claims. In addition, the Part B services are for the\nsame diagnosis, which is the terminal diagnosis on the corresponding Part A claim. Medicare\npays for physician services through Part A or Part B, depending on the physician\xe2\x80\x99s relationship\nwith the hospice. Medicare, however, should not pay a physician for services related to a\nhospice beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s terminal diagnosis through Part A and Part B at the same time. In almost\n70 percent of the questionable claims, the physician indicated that he or she was not employed or\npaid under agreement by the patient\xe2\x80\x99s hospice provider. It is not clear in these cases whether the\nphysician used the modifier incorrectly or the hospice billed inappropriately.\n\nIn 2009, questionable Part B claims totaled $565,666 for 4,280 Medicare beneficiaries. The\nmost common diagnoses for these questionable claims were lung cancer, followed by chronic\nairway obstruction and congestive heart failure. The most common services were for patient\nevaluation and management. Notably, one-third of the questionable claims were from Florida.\nFlorida claims amounted to $199,613, which is 35 percent of the total reimbursement for\nquestionable Part B claims in 2009. North Carolina had the next highest amount, with $63,027\nin questionable claims, which is 11 percent of the total. In 2008, 9 percent of hospice\nbeneficiaries lived in Florida and 3 percent lived in North Carolina. 15\n\nThe questionable Part B claims were submitted by 3,116 physicians in 2009. The 10 physicians\nwith the highest questionable Part B billing each received more than $3,700 from such claims in\n\n15\n CMS, Number of Hospices, Number of Persons, Covered Days of Care, Total Charges, and Program Payments\nfor Hospice Services Used by Medicare Beneficiaries, by Area of Residence: Calendar Year 2008, Table 8.3, data\nfrom the Medicare Data Extract System. Accessed at\nwww.cms.gov/Medicaremedicaidstatsupp/downloads/09hospices.zip on August 31, 2010.\n\nOEI-02-06-00224 Questionable Billing for Physician Services for Hospice Beneficiaries\n\x0cPage 6 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\n\n2009. Six of the ten physicians resided in Florida. Three of the ten had the same mailing\naddress. These three physicians were reimbursed a total of $22,916 for the questionable Part B\nclaims. Another 2 of the 10 also shared a billing address. They were reimbursed a total of\n$15,505 for questionable Part B claims. A total of 664 hospices were associated with Part B\nquestionable claims for physician services. Of the 10 hospices associated with the highest\nquestionable Part B billing, 8 were in Florida.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nWe found that questionable billing for Part B physician services provided to hospice\nbeneficiaries amounted to nearly $566,000 in 2009. This means that Medicare paid this amount\nto physicians directly through Part B for services related to a beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s terminal illness, while\nMedicare also paid for services from the same physician for the terminal illness under Part A.\nOne-third of these questionable claims were from Florida.\n\nAlthough we did not find that this problem is widespread, billing for physician services for\nhospice care is a potential program vulnerability given that Medicare may be billed under Part A\nand Part B. As such, we encourage CMS to continue to monitor this issue. In addition, we will\nrefer all of the questionable claims to CMS for appropriate action. We will provide this\ninformation in a separate memorandum.\n\nThis report is being issued directly in final form because it contains no recommendations. If you\nhave comments or questions about this report, please provide them within 60 days. Please refer\nto report number OEI-02-06-00224 in all correspondence.\n\n\n\n\nOEI-02-06-00224 Questionable Billing for Physician Services for Hospice Beneficiaries\n\x0cPage 7 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A\n\nHOSPICE SERVICES, LEVELS OF CARE, AND PAYMENT RATES\n\nThe Medicare hospice benefit covers nursing care, medical social services, hospice aide and\nhomemaker services, physician services, counseling, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and\nspeech-language pathology services. It also includes short-term inpatient care, medical supplies\n(including drugs and biologicals), and the use of medical appliances. In addition, the hospice\nbenefit covers any other service that is specified in the plan of care as reasonable and necessary\nfor the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions and for which\npayment may otherwise be made under Medicare. 16\n\nThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) publishes general hospice payment rates\nannually to be used for each level of care. 17 The rates are adjusted based on the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s\ngeographic location. The levels of care and the fiscal year 2009 Medicare unadjusted daily rates\nfor each are as follows:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Routine Home Care ($139.97): The routine home care rate is paid to the hospice for each\n day that the beneficiary is under the care of the hospice and is not receiving one of the\n other categories of care. Routine home care includes, but is not limited to, nursing and\n hospice aide services. Routine home care may be provided in the home or other places of\n residence, such as a nursing facility.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Continuous Home Care ($816.94): Continuous home care is allowed only during periods\n of crisis in which a beneficiary requires continuous care to achieve palliation or\n management of acute medical symptoms. It is covered only as necessary to maintain the\n terminally ill beneficiary at home. The care must be predominantly nursing care.\n Continuous home care may be provided in the home or other places of residence, such as\n a nursing facility. The continuous home care rate is divided by 24 hours to determine an\n hourly rate. A minimum of 8 hours must be provided.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Inpatient Respite Care ($144.79): Respite care is short-term inpatient care provided to\n the beneficiary when necessary to relieve the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s caregiver(s). Respite care\n may be provided only on an occasional basis and is not reimbursed for more than\n 5 consecutive days. Respite care may be provided in a Medicare- or Medicaid-certified\n hospice inpatient facility, hospital, skilled nursing facility, or nursing facility.\n\n\n\n\n16 42 CFR \xc2\xa7 418.202(i).\n17\n CMS, Update to Hospice Payment Rates, Hospice Cap, Hospice Wage Index, and the Hospice Pricer for\nFY 2009, Transmittal 1570, Change Request 6155. Accessed at\nhttp://www.cms.gov/transmittals/downloads/R1570CP.pdf on July 15, 2010.\n\nOEI-02-06-00224 Questionable Billing for Physician Services for Hospice Beneficiaries\n\x0cPage 8 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 General Inpatient Care ($622.66): General inpatient care is for pain control and symptom\n management that cannot feasibly be provided in other settings. General inpatient care\n may be provided in a Medicare- or Medicaid-certified hospice inpatient facility, hospital,\n or skilled nursing facility.\n\n\n\n\nOEI-02-06-00224 Questionable Billing for Physician Services for Hospice Beneficiaries\n\x0c"


text:
 5.6.2010
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 148/48
 Žaloba podaná dne 12. dubna 2010 — Grupo Osborne v. OHIM — Confecciones Sanfertús (TORO)
 (Věc T-165/10)
 2010/C 148/78
 Jazyk, ve kterém byla podána žaloba: španělština
 Účastníci řízení
 Žalobkyně: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Španělsko) (zástupce: J. Iglesias Monravá, advokát)
 Žalovaný: Úřad pro harmonizaci na vnitřním trhu (ochranné známky a vzory)
 Další účastník řízení před odvolacím senátem: Confecciones Sanfertús, SL (Graus, Španělsko)
 Návrhová žádání žalobkyně
 —
 zrušit rozhodnutí druhého odvolacího senátu Úřadu pro harmonizaci na vnitřním trhu (ochranné známky a vzory) (OHIM) ve věci R 0638/2009-2;
 —
 uložit žalovanému náhradu nákladů řízení.
 Žalobní důvody a hlavní argumenty
 Přihlašovatel ochranné známky Společenství: žalobkyně
 Dotčená ochranná známka Společenství: Slovní ochranná známka „TORO“ (přihláška č. 2 844 264) pro výrobky tříd 18, 25 a 39.
 Majitel ochranné známky nebo označení namítaných v námitkovém řízení: Confecciones Sanfertús, SL
 Namítaná ochranná známka nebo označení: Španělská slovní ochranná známka „LETORO“ (č. 465 635) pro výrobky tříd 24 a 25 a španělské obrazové ochranné známky obsahující slovní prvek „TORO“ (č. 802 043 a č. 1 513 622) pro výrobky třídy 25.
 Rozhodnutí námitkového oddělení: Vyhovění námitce a zamítnutí přihlášky.
 Rozhodnutí odvolacího senátu: Zamítnutí žaloby.
 Dovolávané žalobní důvody: Nesprávný výklad čl. 8 odst. 1 písm. b) nařízení č. 207/2009 o ochranné známce Společenství (1); existence dřívějšího rozhodnutí námitkového oddělení o slučitelnosti ochranných známek „TORO“ a „LETORO“; krom toho předložené důkazy o používání nepotvrzují používání španělských ochranných známek „TORO“ a „LETORO“.
 (1) Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 207/2009 ze dne 26. února 2009 o ochranné známce Společenství (Úř. věst. L 78, 24.3.2009, s. 1).


type: contracts

text:
 11.3.2010
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 L 62/52
 DEĊIŻJONI TAL-KUMITAT KONĠUNT TAŻ-ŻEE
 Nru 151/2009
 tal-4 ta’ Diċembru 2009
 li temenda l-Anness XXI (Statistiċi) tal-Ftehim dwar iż-ŻEE
 IL-KUMITAT KONĠUNT TAŻ-ŻEE,
 Wara li kkunsidra l-Ftehim dwar iż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea, kif emendat mill-Protokoll li jaġġusta l-Ftehim dwar iż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea, minn issa ‘l quddiem “il-Ftehim”, u b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 98 tiegħu,
 Billi:
 (1)
 L-Anness XXI tal-Ftehim kien emendat bid-Deċiżjoni tal-Kumitat Konġunt taż-ŻEE Nru 113/2009 tat-22 ta’ Ottubru 2009 (1).
 (2)
 Ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 250/2009 tal-11 ta’ Marzu 2009 li jimplimenta r-Regolament (KE) Nru 295/2008 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill fir-rigward tad-definizzjonijiet ta’ karatteristiċi, il-format tekniku għat-trażmissjoni tad-dejta, ir-rekwiżiti tal-irrappurtar doppju għan-NACE Rev. 1.1 u n-NACE Rev.2 u d-derogi li għandhom jingħataw għall-istatistika strutturali tan-negozji (2) għandu jiġi inkorporat fil-Ftehim.
 (3)
 Ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 251/2009 tal-11 Marzu 2009 li jimplimenta u jemenda r-Regolament (KE) Nru 295/2008 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill dwar is-serje ta’ dejta li għandha tiġi prodotta għall-istatistiċi strutturali tal-kummerċ u l-adattamenti meħtieġa wara l-klassifikazzjoni ta’ statistika tal-prodotti assoċjati mal-attività (CPA) (3) għandu jiġi inkorporat fil-Ftehim
 (4)
 Ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 2700/98 (4) u (KE) Nru 2702/98 (5), li huma inkorporati fil-Ftehim, huma mħassra mir-Regolament (KE) Nru 250/2009, filwaqt li d-dispożizzjonijiet tagħhom jibqgħu japplikaw rigward il-ġabra, il-kumpilazzjoni u t-trażmissjoni ta’ dejta għas-snin ta’ referenza sal-2007 b’din is-sena inkluża.
 (5)
 Ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 2701/98 (6), li hu inkorporat fil-Ftehim, hu mħassar mir-Regolament (KE) Nru 251/2009, filwaqt li d-dispożizzjonijiet tiegħu jibqa’ japplika rigward is-serje ta’ dejta li għandha tiġi trażmessa għas-snin ta’referenza sal-2007 b’din is-sena inkluża,
 IDDEĊIEDA DAN LI ĠEJ:
 Artikolu 1
 L-Anness XXI tal-Ftehim għandu jiġi emendat kif ġej:
 1.
 Dan li ġej għandu jiġi miżjud mal-punt 1 (ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 295/2008 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill):
 “, kif emendat minn:
 —
 32009 R 0251: ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 251/2009 tat-11 ta’ Marzu 2009 (ĠU L 86, 31.3.2009, p. 170).”
 2.
 Il-punti li ġejjin għandhom jiddaħħlu wara l-punt 1j (ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 1670/2003):
 “1k.
 32009 R 0250: ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 250/2009 tal-11 ta’ Marzu 2009 li jimplimenta r-Regolament (KE) Nru 295/2008 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill fir-rigward tad-definizzjonijiet ta’ karatteristiċi, il-format tekniku għat-trażmissjoni tad-dejta, ir-rekwiżiti tal-irrappurtar doppju għan-NACE Rev. 1.1 u n-NACE Rev.2 u d-derogi li għandhom jingħataw għall-istatistika strutturali tan-negozji (ĠU L 86, 31.3.2009, p. 1)
 1 l.
 32009 R 0251: ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 251/2009 tal-11 ta’ Marzu 2009 li jimplimenta u jemenda r-Regolament (KE) Nru 295/2008 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill dwar is-serje ta’ dejta li għandha tiġi prodotta għall-istatistiċi strutturali tal-kummerċ u l-adattamenti meħtieġa wara l-klassifikazzjoni ta’ statistika tal-prodotti assoċjati mal-attività (CPA) (ĠU L 86, 31.3.2009, p. 170).
 Id-dispożizzjonijiet tar-Regolament għandhom, għall-finijiet ta’ dan il-Ftehim, jinqraw bl-adattament li ġej:
 il-Liechtenstein hu eżentat mill-ġbir tad-dejta tas-serje tad-9C u 9D skont l-Anness 1. Il-Liechtenstein għandu jforni dejta tal-livell ta’ tqassim tal-attività skont il-livell ta’ żewġ ċifri biss ta’ NACE Rev.2.”
 3.
 It-test ta’ adattament li ġej għandu jiżdied mal-punti 1a (ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 2700/98) u 1c (ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 2702/98):
 “Id-dispożizzjonijiet tar-Regolament għandhom, għall-finijiet ta’ dan il-Ftehim, jinqraw bl-adattament li ġej:
 Skont l-Artikolu 6 tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 250/2009, dan ir-Regolament huwa mħassar. Id-dispożizzjonijiet għandhom, madankollu, ikomplu japplikaw fir-rigward tal-ġbir, tal-kumpilazzjoni u tat-trażmissjoni ta’ dejta għas-snin ta’ referenza sal-2007 b’din is-sena inkluża.”
 4.
 It-test ta’ adattement li ġej għandu jiżdied fil-punt 1b (ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 2701/98):
 “Id-dispożizzjonijiet tar-Regolament għandhom, għall-finijiet ta’ dan il-Ftehim, jinqraw bl-adattamenti li ġejjin:
 Skont l-Artikolu 2 tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 251/2009, dan ir-Regolament huwa mħassar. Id-dispożizzjonijiet għandhom, madankollu, ikomplu japplikaw fir-rigward tas-serje ta’ dejta li għandha tiġi trażmessa għas-snin ta’ referenza sal-2007 b’din is-sena inkluża.”
 Artikolu 2
 It-testi tar-Regolamenti (KE) Nru 250/2009 u 251/2009 fl-lingwa Iżlandiża u dik Norveġiża, li għandhom jiġu ppubblikati fis-Suppliment għaż-ŻEE tal-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej, għandhom ikunu awtentiċi.
 Artikolu 3
 Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tidħol fis-seħħ nhar il-5 ta’ Diċembru 2009, sakemm ikunu saru n-notifiki kollha taħt l-Artikolu 103(1) tal-Ftehim lill-Kumitat Konġunt taż-ŻEE (*).
 Artikolu 4
 Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tiġi ppubblikata fis-Sezzjoni taż-ŻEE u fis-Suppliment taż-ŻEE ta’ Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
 Magħmul fi Brussell, l-4 ta’ Diċembru 2009.
 Għall-Kumitat Konġunt taż-ŻEE
 Il-President
 Oda Helen SLETNES
 (1) ĠU L 334, 17.12.2009, p. 15.
 (2) ĠU L 86, 31.3.2009, p. 1.
 (3) ĠU L 86, 31.3.2009, p. 170.
 (4) ĠU L 344, 18.12.1998, p. 49.
 (5) ĠU L 344, 18.12.1998, p. 102.
 (6) ĠU L 344, 18.12.1998, p. 81.
 (*) Ma huma indikati l-ebda ħtiġijiet kostituzzjonali.