
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


The AseraCare court decision benefited hospices and physicians, particularly by recognizing the uncertainty surrounding prognostication of a six-month life expectancy and the principle that two physicians can disagree about prognostication and neither be wrong. The decision’s future, however, is uncertain, as the U.S. Supreme Court may weigh in. In this episode, Meg Pekarske is joined by Bryan Nowicki, Joe Diedrich and Jody Rudman to discuss their work in representing national hospice, physician and healthcare organizations in advocating to the Supreme Court that it should review and reverse a lower court decision—the Care Alternatives case—that rejected the AseraCare holding.
By Meg Pekarske5
1010 ratings
The AseraCare court decision benefited hospices and physicians, particularly by recognizing the uncertainty surrounding prognostication of a six-month life expectancy and the principle that two physicians can disagree about prognostication and neither be wrong. The decision’s future, however, is uncertain, as the U.S. Supreme Court may weigh in. In this episode, Meg Pekarske is joined by Bryan Nowicki, Joe Diedrich and Jody Rudman to discuss their work in representing national hospice, physician and healthcare organizations in advocating to the Supreme Court that it should review and reverse a lower court decision—the Care Alternatives case—that rejected the AseraCare holding.

27,225 Listeners

8,814 Listeners

112,942 Listeners

56,541 Listeners

368,705 Listeners

72 Listeners

5,552 Listeners

4,452 Listeners

29,248 Listeners

11,733 Listeners

20,208 Listeners

8,405 Listeners

12 Listeners

619 Listeners

0 Listeners