Book reviews

Stephen Chan and Andrew J. Williams (eds), Renegade states: The Evolution of Revolutionary Foreign Policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994).

Adam Roberts and Benedict Kingsbury (eds), United Nations, Divided World. The UN's Role in International Relations 2nd edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993)

G. Hastedt and K. Knickrehm, (eds), Toward the Twenty‐first Century. A Reader in World Politics (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994).

A. J.R. Groom and Margot Light (eds), Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory (London: Pinter Publishers, 1994).     

Mental disabilities under the ADA: a management rights approach

While numerous sources have focused on employee rights and employer obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, this article will emphasize employer rights with respect to mental disabilities under the ADA. Specifically, it addresses the ADA's definition of "mental disability," the right of employers to screen job applicants in spite of the ADA, the conditions under which an employer may require an employee to undergo a "fitness for duty" examination, and the limits of the duty to "reasonably accommodate" an employee with a mental disability.     

Evaluating adolescent decision making in legal contexts

Challenges the use by policy researchers of a model for comparing adolescent and adult decision making that is based on informed consent standards. An expanded decision-making framework designed to evaluate judgment in adults and adolescents can better test the empirical basis of paternalistic legal policies. The theoretical and empirical literature on the informed consent framework is critiqued and an alternative framework incorporating judgment factors is proposed. Three judgment factors—temporal perspective, attitude toward risk, and peer and parental influence—and their effects on decision making are explored. Finally, implications for future research are analyzed in several decision-making contexts.Several of the ideas in this article were originally presented by the first author and were published as part of a symposium on competence (see Scott, 1992). The current article expands and refines these ideas, provides a more substantial research base, and suggests several future research directions. We thank Joseph Allen, Richard Bonnie, Baruch Fischhoff, William Gardner, John Monahan, Edward Mulvey, Richard Redding, Paul Slovic, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Special thanks to Thomas Grisso for providing much constructive criticism and to Wendy Shang for outstanding research assistance. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the MacArthur Foundation, which supported this work in its early stages.     

State Medicaid reform under Section 1115 demonstration authority

Given the complexity of federal Medicaid law and the limitations it imposes on state flexibility, it is likely that states will continue to ask the Secretary to grant waivers under Section 1115 to allow them to pursue new approaches to health care reform. The results of currently operational Section 1115 projects involving statewide managed care systems will be useful in evaluating the Medicaid reform measures currently under discussion in other states and at the federal level. In particular, the ability of the states to control Medicaid and indigent care costs and to utilize federal dollars more efficiently should prove important in evaluating a block grant approach to federal Medicaid funding. Moreover, Section 1115 project results that bear on the sufficiency of various Medicaid capitation rate methodologies will also be of value as more states expand the use of managed care arrangements for their Medicaid populations.     

The Department of Health and Human Services issues proposed regulations on physician incentive payments by hospitals

Hospitals tempted to operate their own physician incentive plans are reminded that, under OBRA 1986, they are precluded from paying physician incentives of any kind to reduce or limit Medicare or Medicaid covered services. In light of the proposed regulations and the guidance of the preamble, hospitals should review their incentive plans to determine whether physicians providing direct patient care are receiving prohibited payments. Further, supervising physicians who are receiving incentives for certain hospital departments may not influence direct care over patients served by those departments, even through other physicians. Some risk may also exist if incentives are based on a formula that considers patients of the supervising physician's medical group. Finally, it may be useful to develop a utilization and quality of care review program specifically designed to assure that patient undertreatment does not occur as a result of any supervising physician incentive program.