Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Expensive raincoats
The federal Department of Health and Human Services is demanding that the State of California give back what the feds claim is $627,000 in unallowable costs run up in San Diego for contraceptive supplies wrongly used as protection against venereal disease. “Family planning services prevent or delay pregnancy or otherwise control family size,” explains a June audit of the state’s Medicaid program. It goes on to say that out of a sample of 17 claims that were paid to the state and later examined by auditors, “10 were ineligible for reimbursement because the primary purpose of the drugs or supplies was not family planning, 6 were ineligible for reimbursement because of insufficient documentation, and 1 was eligible for reimbursement … because the drug was provided for treatment of a complication.” In the case of the ten drug-related claims, “the primary purpose of the drugs or supplies was not family planning. Of these…seven were for contraceptive supplies (for protection against sexually transmitted infections) provided during visits for testing or treatment of sexually transmitted infections.
“The remaining three claim lines were for oral contraceptive drugs provided to treat a medical condition, such as severe premenstrual symptoms and acne. Because no family planning services were provided during the visits, these claim lines were not eligible for Federal reimbursement.” The audit noted that, “From October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2010, the State agency claimed approximately $38 million for family planning drugs and supplies provided…in San Diego County.” State Medicaid officials agreed with the auditors’ findings and promised to change their ways.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Expensive raincoats
Expensive raincoats
The federal Department of Health and Human Services is demanding that the State of California give back what the feds claim is $627,000 in unallowable costs run up in San Diego for contraceptive supplies wrongly used as protection against venereal disease. “Family planning services prevent or delay pregnancy or otherwise control family size,” explains a June audit of the state’s Medicaid program. It goes on to say that out of a sample of 17 claims that were paid to the state and later examined by auditors, “10 were ineligible for reimbursement because the primary purpose of the drugs or supplies was not family planning, 6 were ineligible for reimbursement because of insufficient documentation, and 1 was eligible for reimbursement … because the drug was provided for treatment of a complication.” In the case of the ten drug-related claims, “the primary purpose of the drugs or supplies was not family planning. Of these…seven were for contraceptive supplies (for protection against sexually transmitted infections) provided during visits for testing or treatment of sexually transmitted infections.
“The remaining three claim lines were for oral contraceptive drugs provided to treat a medical condition, such as severe premenstrual symptoms and acne. Because no family planning services were provided during the visits, these claim lines were not eligible for Federal reimbursement.” The audit noted that, “From October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2010, the State agency claimed approximately $38 million for family planning drugs and supplies provided…in San Diego County.” State Medicaid officials agreed with the auditors’ findings and promised to change their ways.
Comments