Are you planning to attend the NAPR 2004 Fall Fly-In?

If so, you need to know:

• The 2004 Fall Fly-In will be in Ft. Lauderdale, November 11 & 12. The meeting starts Thursday, November 11, with a reception and dinner at 7:00 p.m. The Fall Fly-In ends Friday, November 12, with adjournment at 5:00 p.m.

• The hotel for the Fall Fly-In is the Hard Rock Hotel. The Hard Rock Hotel is conveniently located only 10 minutes from the airport. The cost is $155.00 Single/Double plus tax.

• Plan now to attend this hands-on program. Watch your mail for forthcoming information.

blank line

N.J. law takes on malpractice insurance premiums

New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey signed a new law with tort, insurance and healthcare system reforms aimed at containing malpractice premiums while ensuring high-quality care for patients. The New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act creates a three-year, $78 million fund to provide malpractice insurance relief to doctors and hospitals and to create a student-loan forgiveness program. The fund will be supported by a $75 annual assessment on professionals, such as doctors, dentists and lawyers, and a $3 annual per-employee surcharge on employers.

In addition, the law strengthens reporting requirements for physician misconduct and expands the state's "good Samaritan law," offering immunity from civil damages to licensed professionals responding to an emergency. Tort reform is accomplished in part by establishing age 13 as the statute of limitations for birth injuries; the previous limit was 18, with two years to file. The new law also prohibits people from concurrently serving on the boards of medical malpractice insurers and professional trade associations, and it allows doctors to form malpractice-insurance purchasing alliances. The Medical Society of New Jersey considers the law only a start, spokesman John Shaffer said. "There is nothing to immediately stabilize or reduce premiums, and right now we are facing premium increases of 20% on renewal," he said.

-- by Cinda Becker

Lawmakers Move to Cut Junk Faxes, Save Small Business

WASHINGTON - Local newspapers and their subscribers "do not need a written consent form to understand one another," the publisher of a community newspaper told Congress last week at a hearing on legislation to repair a flaw in the nation's prohibition against so-called junk faxes.

"...Someone out there is violating the fax rules that are already in place, blasting out offers for everything from vacation cruises to lower mortgage rates," said Cheryl Kaechele, representing the National Newspaper Association. "That's not us. We see no reason why we should pay the price for such antics."

At issue was a proposal by the Federal Communications Commission to require that businesses, charities and even parent-teacher associations get written consent before sending a fax, a requirement that could shut down legitimate communication without denting the problem of junk faxes.

Ms. Kaechele, who publishes a small newspaper in Michigan, said that she and her readers "work together because we need one another, and we have developed a good working relationship and mutual trust. We would not abuse our customers' fax machines, nor they ours."

Unsolicited advertising delivered by phone line to a facsimile machine -- the junk fax -- was banned in 1991, with mixed results. Following a recent reinterpretation of its regulations, however, the commission held that faxes may not be delivered without written permission, and then stayed that order until next January.

U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, is leading a bipartisan effort to assert an "existing business relationship" test for faxing. Under the proposed FCC rules, he pointed out, "every business, small large or home-based, every association, every non-profit organization, and every charity would be required to obtain prior written approval from each individual before it sends a commercial fax."

(Provided by Special Counsel Jason Gamel, who has been monitoring this issue on behalf of NAPR.)

Ask Miss Deed

Dear Miss Deed:

I know it’s summer and you like to cut back on your enormous workload but I feel a compelling need to have you clarify a situation I encountered.

I called a hospital I had been in contact with over the last several months but never previously sent a contingency contract because I did not have a qualified candidate to refer. Several days ago, I identified a candidate who was both qualified and interested in one of the jobs the in-house recruiter listed. I called the in-house recruiter and asked if I could send my contract. He agreed, so I sent it and when it was signed I called him, disclosed my candidate’s name (I already had permission from my candidate) which he accepted and then sent the candidate’s CV.

Five days later the in-house recruiter called and while apologizing profusely, told me he found my candidate’s name in his database and could not pay a fee if the candidate accepted.

I am angry and think the in-house recruiter violated the Ethics Code (not to mention he cost me a lot of money).

Seeking Restitution

Dear Seeking:

Thank you for caring about my summer; it is very busy but still quite enjoyable. My husband and I have had some time to get away, but I am never too busy to answer your questions.

Unfortunately your situation is quite ugly with a very small portion of the blame attributable to you. The problem is that your client (who I know is a NAPR member) had an obligation under the Code of Ethics to tell you he used a database, match or list service before he signed your contract. This part of the Code was added to alert recruiting firms that they should ask whether the client used a database as well as to require clients to be forthright in their dealings with firms.

The key operative phrase is that an in-house recruiter must, “Inform the recruiter prior to establishing a formal working relationship that they subscribe to a databank…” Unfortunately you did not think to ask about the databank (as I am sure most recruiters also forget) when you initiated contract discussions. The bottom line, however, is that the in-house recruiter had an obligation to inform you, which he clearly did not. Maybe some gentle berating by you of him will make you feel a little better, but it is still a very long way from offsetting the loss of all that fee money. You should file a complaint with the Ethics Committee.

Yours truly,

Miss Deed

Miss Deed is an expert on all things ethical, and is ready to answer your questions. All questions to Miss Deed must be accompanied by the individual's name, telephone and e-mail address. If the individual does not want his or her name published, we will publish the question with the statement: "Name Withheld By Request." No questions will be considered without verifying who the sender is. Send your questions to Miss Deed at the following e-mail address: DearMissDeed@hotmail.com and your question may appear in an upcoming NewsFlash!