Die externe Qualitätssicherung im Krankenhausrecht

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Neumann
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Hospital Planning ◽  
German Hospital ◽  
Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Federal States ◽  
Social Law ◽  
German Health ◽  
Health Legislation ◽  
Subjective Rights

Quality assurance has recently come to the forefront of German health legislation. The author discusses objectives and methods of quality management in the hospital sector and investigates their implementation in social law and hospital law while also taking into account constitutional law. The focus of this treatise are the quality measures by the G-BA (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) [Federal Joint Committee] and implementations of quality standards in German hospital planning. The author presents a comprehensive overview with a distinctive consideration of the differing legislative powers of the Federal Government and the federal states, consequences of subjective rights and current problems of the execution of single measures like minimum quantity regulation. Result: the consolidation of the democratic legitimation of the G-BA is required. A clear delimitation of the competences of the Federal Government and the federal states is necessary. The author has been working as a lawyer focusing on German hospital law for several years. The publication is aimed at lawyers and legal practitioners in health law.

Federation and the History of the Administration of Indigenous Affairs in Canada, the United States, and Australia: New Insights through a Transnational Approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-53
Author(s):  
Ted Binnema
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North America ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Previous History ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal States ◽  
British North America ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
History Of ◽  
State Relations

The importance of decisions regarding the allocation of jurisdiction over Indigenous affairs in federal states can only be understood well when studied transnationally and comparatively. Historians of Canada appear never to have considered the significance of the fact that the British North America Act (1867) gave the Canadian federal government exclusive jurisdiction over Indian affairs, even though that stipulation is unique among the constitutional documents of comparable federal states (the United States and Australia). This article explains that the constitutional provisions in Canada, the United States, and Australia are a product of the previous history of indigenous-state relations in each location, but also profoundly affected subsequent developments in each of those countries. Despite stark differences, the similar and parallel developments also hint at trends that influenced all three countries.

scholarly journals Federalism in Pakistan: A Conflict Management Tool to Manage Ethnic Diversities (2002-2012)

2020 ◽  
Vol V (III) ◽  
pp. 96-104
Author(s):  
Muhammad Imran ◽  
Mughees Ahmad ◽  
Zab Un Nisa
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Management ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Ethnic Diversity ◽  
Power Sharing ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Dimensional System ◽  
Federal System ◽  
Federal States

Federations can be different at the level of centralism and in practices of governance. Due to such idiosyncratic features, states can be considered as centralized on the basis of the powerful federal government at the centre or decentralized because of the implementation of the theory of devolution of power and majoritarian federations due to the influential position of majority ethnic groups of the society. Certain federal states can apply a multi-dimensional system of governance, power and authority, while some other states can ascent more centralized and powerful governance. Some scholars alleged that the capability of the Federal state to meet the issue of ethnic diversity diverges transversely to its commitments and different structures. The aforementioned is further claimed that “a formal federal system functions in practice as a unitary system; the system's capacity is not according to the needs to accommodate ethnic and national cleavages” (Kohli, 2004). On the basis of such suggestions, this research paper endeavors to examine federalism as a tool to manage ethnic diversities in Pakistan. This paper argues that a more effective paradigm of the power sharing mechanism can be fruitful to enable federalism in Pakistan to manage ethnic diversities more exclusively.

TRENDS IN HEALTH LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 720-721
Author(s):  
JOSEPH S. WALL
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Educational Program ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Hospital Services ◽  
Bureau Of Indian Affairs ◽  
Health Administrator ◽  
House Committee ◽  
The Government ◽  
Health Legislation

ON March 21 the Hoover Commission's final report on the reorganization of the Government's medical and hospital services was submitted to the Congress. The report prepared by the bi-partisan l2-man Commission is not in accord with the proposal to create a cabinet department of welfare which would include the present functions of the Federal Security Agency—a proposal which is incorporated into a House bill (H. R. 782) and, as stated in this column a month ago, has been approved by the House Committee to which it was referred. In contrast to H. R. 782, the Hoover Commission recommends a new cabinet department to direct the welfare and educational program of the Federal Government and a new and separate United Medical Administration. The UMA would be responsible directly to the President and should, according to the Commission, be headed by "the ablest medical and health administrator whose services can be obtained by the government," with three assistant administrators and an advisory board composed exclusively of Federal officials. It is noteworthy that the qualifications recommended for the person who should head the UMA does not specify that he should be a doctor of medicine. The cabinet department, for which no name has as yet been proposed, would have jurisdiction over the Bureau of Old Age and Survivor's Insurance, the Bureau of Public Assistance, the Children's Bureau, the Bureau of Education, the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation, the American Printing House for the Blind, the Columbia Institution for the Deaf and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

scholarly journals FEDERAL STATE CLAUSE, TERRITORIAL UNITS CLAUSE AND FEDERAL RESERVATION — THE WAYS TO LIMIT INTERNATIONAL TREATY OBLIGATIONS

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Борис Осминин ◽  
Boris Osminin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Federal State ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Federal States ◽  
Domestic Law

Federal states may encounter difficulties in applying international treaties on matters constitutionally committed to their constituent units. In such cases a federal state may not be able to join the treaty without some accommodation either by its constituent units or other parties to the treaty. There are certain methods by which these problems can be reduced: federal state clauses, territorial units clauses, and federalism reservations. Some treaties may include a federal state clause to the effect that limits the scope of treaty’s obligations to those that federal state’s government has constitutional authority to assume. Another solution is to include a territorial units clause where the treaty may apply to some of a state’s constituent units but not others. Several federal states have made reservations to limit their obligations to those areas of legislative jurisdiction that the federal government has assumed. On occasion, other states have objected to such reservations. Alternatively, a federal state may issue a federal declaration to explain how federalism affects its implementation of the treaty. Unitary states tend to resist the federal state clause and the territorial units clause because they create an imbalance between rights and obligations of the contracting federal and unitary states. Although such clauses are not popular with unitary states, they do make it that much easier for federations to become parties. Such clauses are a compromise between the interest of unitary and federal states. Domestic law provides no excuse for a failure to fully implement international treaty obligations. In international law, if the constituent units fail to comply, it is the federal government that is liable for the failure to properly implement the treaty.

Zugang der größten Seeschiffe zum Hamburger Hafen?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Expansion Planning ◽  
Present Book ◽  
Engineering Company ◽  
Approval Procedure ◽  
The Elbe River ◽  
German Reich ◽  
Subjective Rights

Is it legally permissible for Hamburg to demand that the Federal Government widen the Elbe River? The German Reich committed itself in the years 1921/1922 vis-a-vis Hamburg to take over necessary expansion measures to ensure that the "the largest seagoing ships" are able to access the port of Hamburg. The present book proves that today, this obligation applies to the Federal Republic of Germany via a reference in § 12 (4) WaStrG which – based on the protection norm theory – corresponds to subjective public law of Hamburg. The scope of this synallagmatic relationship is the prioritisation of the port of Hamburg in the waterway expansion planning of the Federal Government. To better account for the position of Hamburg provided with procedural subjective rights, it is proposed to valorise the role of the Hanseatic city in the planning approval procedure by participating in a hydraulic engineering company to which the project ownership can be transferred.

Bundeskanzleramt und Bundesregierung

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Busse ◽  
Hans Hofmann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
It Management ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Seventh Edition ◽  
Parliamentary System ◽  
Directorate General ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
And Function

This handbook provides a comprehensive overview of the organisation, tasks, operation and function of Germany’s Federal Chancellery and its Federal Government as well as the Federal Chancellery’s cooperation with the federal ministries. This seventh edition of the handbook has been revised, updated and reorganised, and new sections on the Federal Government Commissioner for Digital Affairs, created in the 19th legislative term, and on the new Directorate-General for Digital Policy and Strategic IT Management have been added. To aid in understanding how the executive constitutional structures work, the handbook addresses issues concerning the parliamentary system of government and decision-making processes within the Federal Government. But the handbook is also intended to provide a closer look at the practical, everyday workings of government, with a focus on the Federal Chancellor’s role, as defined in constitutional law, and his or her authority to issue guidelines, to organise and to manage.

The G8 Summit in Germany, the Bundeswehr and the German Bundestag

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 1161-1172
Author(s):  
Dieter Wiefelspütz
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Summit Meeting ◽  
Federal States ◽  
Industrialized Nations ◽  
German Bundestag

From 6–8 June 2007, the summit meeting of the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrialized nations was held in Heiligendamm, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, under Germany's presidency. In advance of the summit, the federal state (Land) Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and the federal authorities agreed that the task of providing adequate security for the Summit would overstretch Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania's capacities unless assistance were provided by the Federal Government and other federal states.

The Allocation of Cultural Policy Powers in the Federal Republic of Germany

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (10) ◽  
pp. 1335-1354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Ogorek ◽  
Tian Pu
Keyword(s):  
Federal Republic ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Cultural Policy ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Federal States ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
The Individual

The Federal Republic of Germany is a state that shows a strong support for culture of any kind. While it is not explicitly stated anywhere in theGrundgesetz(Basic Law), it can be argued that very few nations regard the promotion of the arts, sciences and education as a public undertaking to the extent that Germany does. The federal structure of the German constitution is reflected in the allocation of governmental tasks between the federal government and the individual federal states, orLänder. Under this structure, theLänderbear the primary responsibility for cultural matters. However, contrary to widely-held belief, the Basic Law also grants the federal government a range of legislative, administrative and financial powers with respect to cultural matters. Although when taken together these do not add up to a comprehensive promotional authority of the federal government in the cultural sector, due to numerous individual empowerments, the federal government is without doubt in a position to take an active role in cultural affairs to a significant extent.

Risk-sharing by financial markets in federal systems: a critique of existing empirical assessments

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-368
Author(s):  
Sebastian Dullien
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Risk Sharing ◽  
Normal Variation ◽  
Federal States ◽  
Seminal Contribution ◽  
Single State ◽  
The Business Cycle ◽  
The One

This paper criticizes the standard methodology used to measure the importance of different channels of risk-sharing in federal states such as the one used in Asdrubali et al.'s (1996) seminal contribution. It argues that the methodology chosen in these papers systematically underestimates the role federal governments play in stabilizing the business cycle in its member states (and overstates the role of financial markets in stabilization) as it (a) ignores the possibility of direct spending by the federal government in a single state stabilizing state GDP, (b) strips out effects of transfers and grants in national recessions, (c) counts smoothing of distributed profits by domestic firms as ‘smoothing by capital markets’ and (d) counts a normal variation of households’ savings to smooth consumption as ‘smoothing by credit markets’.

Symposium: Mental Health Law Differences and Coercive Measures Over Four Countries

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. S619-S619
Author(s):  
E. Noorthoorn ◽  
P. Lepping ◽  
T. Steinert ◽  
E. Flammer ◽  
B. Massood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
Federal States ◽  
High Commissioner ◽  
Involuntary Medication ◽  
Competing Interest ◽  
Health Legislation

In 2008, the UNHCR issued a convention on the rights of persons with disability. Since then, many countries were visited by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In a number of countries, for example Germany and the Netherlands, mental health legislation was considered unsatisfactory and either regional variations in procedures or new legislation was drafted. In Germany, the final decision after different admission procedures is always made by a judge. In the Netherlands, detention on mental health ground with involuntary admission is decided by a Governmental administrator working for the local Major. In England and Wales, it is decided by three medical/psychiatric professionals. Currently, the Netherlands is drafting a law following the main principles of the Anglo-Saxon law. In Germany, all federal states are currently adopting their mental health laws to fulfil requirements of the Constitutional Court, which decided that coercive treatment is only admissible under very strict conditions after a judge's decision. Studies show the Dutch legislation is associated with higher seclusion rates, in numbers, and duration. Moreover, recent German findings show in a recent period when involuntary medication was not admissible, inpatient violence and coercive measures increased significantly. In this symposium, we discuss the several laws and regulations of four countries (Wales, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands), now and in the near future. Each presentation of a certain countries’ regulations is followed by a description of standard figures of the country, first by an expert in the respective country's law, and consequently by an expert in nationwide or regional figures.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document