Search

Indian Himalayas are famous for natural resources and attractiveness for leisure, religious, and adventure tourism. Gulmarg is a unique site in this region selected for this study to explore the behaviour of ski tourists. The objective was to understand if ski tourists behave differently in the Himalayan settings concerning skiing destination choice factors with satisfaction and loyalty compared to similar resorts worldwide. The study found that skiing destination choice factors positively impact tourist satisfaction and loyalty, while tourist satisfaction was found to impact loyalty. The study's main contribution lies in establishing the choice factors of ski tourist destinations in the Indian region and the relationship between ski tourism destination factors and tourist satisfaction and loyalty. Finally, unlike other analyzed examples from European and other ski resorts worldwide, sustainability is not a decisive factor in the selection, satisfaction, and loyalty of tourists in Gulmarg resort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Vjesnik Bibliotekara Hrvatske is the property of Croatian Library Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Vjesnik Bibliotekara Hrvatske is the property of Croatian Library Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Vjesnik Bibliotekara Hrvatske is the property of Croatian Library Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Over 100 million Americans face healthcare debt. Most of those in debt have health insurance, with the debt often springing from services people thought were covered. Before and even after receiving care, those seeking coverage must run a gauntlet of obstacles such as excessive pre-authorization requests, burdensome concurrent review of care, and retrospective review, which claws back payment after a treatment is pre-authorized and payment made. Increasingly, this procedural tangle leaves people with unwarranted and unexpected medical bills, quickly spiraling them into debt. Who polices health insurers' claims practices? What keeps insurance companies from designing overly burdensome pre-authorization requirements or guidelines that deny legitimate claims on a broad scale? The answers depend on the insurance's source. Employer-sponsored health benefits-the predominant form of health insurance in the United States-is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, known as ERISA. ERISA regulates health benefits only lightly, but it supplants all state law claims and remedies, giving in exchange only the barest of federal remedies. Over the decades since ERISA's enactment, health benefit administrators have exploited this permissive environment, moving from an indemnity model, in which claims are paid nearly without question, to one of active involvement in treatment decisions and cost controls. ERISA's regulation of health plans has not kept pace. But employer-sponsored health plans have a feature that other health insurance does not: the plans' decision-makers are deemed fiduciaries under ERISA, legally bound to place plan participants' interests above their own. Fiduciaries within health plans wield far-reaching powers. They not only decide individual claims, but they also develop guidelines that affect thousands of others, such as the contours of pre-authorization requirements or the applicable standard of care. These broader fiduciary decisions can result in mass claim denials, and it is these powers-and the lack of consequences for abusing them-that this Article addresses. Part I lays out the drafters' goals in imposing fiduciary duties and the crucial role of fiduciary status in ERISA's overall scheme. Part II describes the problems in claims processing that plan participants face, caused in part by a lack of consequences for largescale fiduciary breaches. Part III examines emerging legal theories and remedies for fiduciary breach, designed to ameliorate the problem of mass claim denials and resulting medical debt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Millions of Americans count ort employer-sponsored health insurance. Recent lawsuits and imestigations show, however, that valid claims are often clenied. The governing law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), shields plan administrators from their mistakes; if a claim is denied without a valid reason, a consumer may sue for the benefit that should have been paid, but not consequential or punitive damages. One aspect of ERISA potentially incentivizes plan administrators to process claims correctly the first time: an attorney's fee provision gives judges discretion to award fees to either side courts have developed a fivefactor test to guide their discretion. But individual healthcare claimants can rarely satisfi two of the test's five factors, thus eroding their chances of recovering fees and blunting any incentive for administrators to decide claims correctly the first time. The attorney's fee test arose in the 1 9705 in common fund and pension malfeasance claims; it is an awkward fit for today's healthcare clainis. The Supreme Court observed in 2010 that the factors bear "no obvious relation" to ERISA or existing fee-shifting jurisprudence, holding that courts need not lise them at all. Yet courts still do. This Article proposes that courts recalibrate the attorney's fee factors for individual healtlicare claims. The current factorS; impOSe duties aticl considerations found nowhere iii ERISA, and many prevailing ERISA plaintiffs cannot recover their attorney's fees under this standard. A revised live-factor test would help ensure that the fee provision functions as intended and serves ERISA'S dual goals of protecting benefits and providing ready access to the federal courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sociology & Space / Sociologija i Prostor is the property of Institut za drustvena istrazivanja u Zagrebu (Institute for Social Research of Zagreb) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Collegium Antropologicum is the property of Croatian Anthropological Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Library / Knjižnica is the property of Zveza bibliotekarskih drustev Slovenije (ZBDS) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The American opioid epidemic cuts across all social divisions, touching the employed and unemployed. Those with private health insurance are one of the fastest-growing affected groups, but this group struggles most to get care. Despite their insured status, the privately-insured received treatment at half the rate of those with Medicaid and at even lower rates than the uninsured. This article focuses on a significant barrier to treatment for those in employersponsored benefit plans: the discretionary clause. A discretionary clause grants the decision maker broad latitude and ensures that any federal court review is deferential. Claims processing in such a legal climate is stingy; recent investigations show that mental health and addiction claims are treated worst of all. Twenty-five states recently banned discretionary clauses in insurance products, but the bans do not reach most ERISA plans. This article posits that ERISA should be amended to ban discretionary clauses. The article explains ERISA and discretionary clauses; it then shows the effect of discretionary clauses on actual cases and claims processing, focusing on mental health and substance abuse. The article then explains the recent movement away from discretionary clauses and shows why the arguments against discretionary clauses apply with even greater force to ERISAgoverned plans. "The very existence of 'rights' under such plans depends on the degree of discretion lodged in the [benefit plan] administrator.". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]