In October, Life University lost an appeal to save the accreditation of what was once the nation’s largest school of chiropractic.

The Marietta, Ga-based university filed the appeal with the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) in August after the June revocation of the chiropractic program’s accreditation. The school maintained the accreditation throughout the appeal process, but on October 20, the CCE voted to uphold its original decision.

“Clearly, we are disappointed, but we cannot dwell on what has passed. We must now concentrate all our efforts on rescuing CCE accreditation and meeting students’ needs,” said Michael J. Schmidt, DC, interim president of Life University, in a message on the university’s website.

It is unknown how long the re-accreditation process could take. Without accreditation, students cannot receive licenses in most states.

“The decision is unfortunate, but Life University will survive and continue our providing an excellent education to our students. We are committed to take all steps necessary to attain accredited statues for the chiropractic program,” said Charles Ribley, DC, chairman of Life’s Board of Trustees, in an October 20 article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

In response to the revocation, several student groups are organizing lawsuits against Life University and Sid Williams, DC, the university’s founder and former president. One suit representing five Life students was filed September 30 in Cobb County Superior Court. It alleged that Williams and the university “damaged them by failing to maintain accreditation necessary for its graduates to be eligible for licensure.”

Peter Scire, a member of that group, is one of many students who has left the university since the June decision. Life’s chiropractic program, which boasted 2,600 students before the loss of accreditation, now consists of about half that number.

“We believe we were paying a tremendous amount of money for a graduate program,” he said. “We expected a first-rate education. And as it turned out, we were getting a second-rate education. The pulling of accreditation only confirms the fact that we were getting a second-rate education.”

Ribley told the Journal-Constitution in an October 10 article that the board was not to blame for the loss of accreditation.

“I don’t feel the board was negligent in any way,” Ribley said in the article. “I don’t know that anybody was negligent.”

Another student, Thomas J. Slezak, is preparing to file a claim. Slezak said that he felt betrayed by not only Williams and the university, but also the CCE. He said that a big part of the reason Life University lost its accreditation was what he called a “heated battle” between Williams and the CCE regarding Williams’ support of the straight philosophy of chiropractic.

“A couple people had a disagreement, and no one would back down,” Slezak said. “And it’s not the CCE or Sid Williams who got hurt—it’s the students.”

Slezak, who has already completed 11 of the 14 quarters required for a chiropractic degree, plans to remain at the university, but said he will not be proud of his school at graduation day—even if it regains accreditation.

“Thank you, Sid, for standing up for chiropractic, but nobody asked you to take on this fight,” Slezak said. “No one asked you to jeopardize the futures of thousands of people. The needs of a few do not outweigh the needs of many.” CP

At about the same time, Bisanti allegedly established two trusts where he placed the majority of his assets, including his home and a Ferrari automobile. In November of 1995, Bisanti sold his ownership interest in B.B. Enzo but continued to receive income from the practice by causing B.B. Enzo to make payments to the trusts, according to the indictment.

Despite earning a significant amount of income in 1994 and 1995, Bisanti paid only a nominal amount of taxes for those years, according to the indictment. In addition, he purportedly failed to file timely income tax returns and paid no taxes in 1996, 1997, and 1998. Bisanti’s tax liability, excluding penalties and interest, is alleged to amount to $597,785. The indictment also contends that Bisanti transferred approximately $800,000 from his chiropractic business and trust accounts into several bank accounts in Europe and purchased Portofino International Bank located in St Vincent in the Grenadines.

On July 2 in Florida, he was arrested on a criminal complaint on these charges. Following a detention hearing in Springfield on August 15, US Magistrate Judge Kenneth Neimen ordered that Bisanti remain in federal custody pending a trial. If convicted on these charges, Bisanti faces up to 5 years imprisonment, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine.

The case was investigated by the US Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, and is being prosecuted by Assistant US Attorney Ariane D. Vuono at the office of US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan.

HIPAA Holds Up in Court
A federal judge in South Carolina rejected an effort by a coalition of physicians to have the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy rule declared unconstitutional and otherwise legally infirm.

In an August 14 ruling, US District Judge Terry Wooten granted the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) motion to dismiss the case. While Wooten noted that the plaintiffs in South Carolina Medical Association (SCMA) v HHS made “important” points that he could not “lightly dismiss,” he ultimately determined that the HIPAA privacy regulation passes muster under the US Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine. SCMA maintained, in particular, that HIPAA’s preemption provision—which holds that if a state law offers “more stringent” privacy protections than HIPAA, the state law will supercede HIPAA—was so vague that it violates the Constitution’s fifth amendment due process guarantee. A “person of ordinary intelligence is unable to determine whether state privacy regulations are ‘more stringent’ than” the HHS rule, the complaint said.

In addition, the association, which represents 6,000 physicians, said the privacy rules are burdensome and will increase costs, “create more paperwork, and impede hospital pre-admission procedures.” In response to this and other public inquiries requesting further clarification of the privacy rule, the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights on October 8 added a frequently asked questions (FAQs) section to its website.

The appendage comes after a meeting held September 10–11 by the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics’ Subcommittee on Privacy and Confidentiality in which providers testified that they needed more government assistance with compliance with HIPAA. Containing nearly 24 questions and responses, the page provides specific answers to many common HIPAA compliance questions, including: 1) Are the following types of insurance covered under HIPAA: long/short term disability; workers compensation; automobile liability that includes coverage for medical payments?; 2) If patients request copies of their medical records as permitted by the privacy rule, are they required to pay for the copies?; and 3) Does the privacy rule protect genetic information?