The government's best offense is deference: the decision of the Supreme Court in Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital

The United States Supreme Court agreed with the Secretary of Health and Human Services that Guernsey Memorial Hospital's advance refunding transaction costs would be subject to a medicare reimbursement policy that is not based upon generally accepted accounting principles. According to the sharp dissent in this case, this policy, set forth in a manual provision, contradicts federal regulations.     

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.