Search

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to summarize the significant responses of the staff of the SEC to 16 frequently asked questions (FAQs) which supplement prior guidance on Rule 15a-6 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Design/methodology/approach – The paper lists Rule 15a-6 activities, refers to prior guidance on the rule, and summarizes the following issues, among others, covered in the FAQs: transactions between a foreign broker-dealer and a person temporarily in the USA, distribution by a foreign broker-dealer of research reports to major US institutional investors, activities of foreign broker-dealers taken with unaffiliated registered broker-dealers, boundaries to the definition of "solicitation" by a foreign broker-dealer of a US investor, and minimum net capital requirements for a registered broker-dealer in a chaperoning arrangement with a foreign broker-dealer. Findings – This guidance does not break new ground and may be supplemented in the future. An amendment of Rule 15a-6 is still necessary to address its fundamental limitations. Originality/value – The paper provides practical explanation by experienced financial services lawyers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released revised recommendations for performing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing in health care settings, including implementing routine rapid HIV screening, the use of an integrated opt-out consent, and limited prevention counseling. Emergency departments (EDs) have been a primary focus of these efforts. These revised CDC recommendations were primarily based on feasibility studies and have not been evaluated through the application of rigorous research methods. This article describes the design and implementation of a large prospective controlled clinical trial to evaluate the CDC’s recommendations in an ED setting. From April 15, 2007, through April 15, 2009, a prospective quasi-experimental equivalent time-samples clinical trial was performed to compare the clinical effectiveness and efficiency of routine (nontargeted) opt-out rapid HIV screening (intervention) to physician-directed diagnostic rapid HIV testing (control) in a high-volume urban ED. In addition, three nested observational studies were performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and patient and staff acceptance of the two rapid HIV testing methods. This article describes the rationale, methodologies, and study design features of this program evaluation clinical trial. It also provides details regarding the integration of the principal clinical trial and its nested observational studies. Such ED-based trials are rare, but serve to provide valid comparisons between testing approaches. Investigators should consider similar methodology when performing future ED-based health services research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT. Objective. To examine differences in health care services utilization between children who are enrolled in the Child Health Insurance Plan (CHIP) and uninsured children and between children before and during their enrollment period in CHIP. Methods. Denver County CHIP enrollment data from 1998 through 2000 were merged with Denver Health utilization data from 1998 through 2000 to determine utilization rates for CHIP-enrolled children at Denver Health (n = 2005). The first method compared the rates of CHIP-enrolled children with those of uninsured children (n = 20 374) during the same time period. The second method compared the utilization of services for children enrolled in CHIP during 1999 before CHIP enrollment (n = 748) and during CHIP enrollment (n = 757). The outcomes measured include emergency, urgent care, specialty care, well-child care, dental visits, and immunizations. Results. For the first method, CHIP children were more likely to have well-child care, dental, and specialty visits and the recommended immunizations than uninsured children. They were less likely to have an emergency care visit than uninsured children. For the second method, before enrolling in CHIP, children had fewer outpatient visits and were less likely to have a well-child care visit than during their enrollment span in CHIP. There was not a significant difference before and during enrollment for the other outcome measures for these children. Conclusions. These results indicate that children who are enrolled in CHIP are more likely to receive preventive care services and less likely to use emergency care than uninsured children, even within a safety net institution, emphasizing the benefits of public insurance programs for children. Pediatrics 2002;110:940-945; CHIP, uninsured, immunizations, well-child care, safety net. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]