Practitioner fraud and abuse in medical benefit programs: government regulation and professional white-collar crime

Physicians who defraud and abuse medical benefit programs provide a unique group of lawbreakers for scientific study. They could be considered to epitomize white collar criminals given their exceedingly high socioeconomic status and power as a professional group. Using official reports and documents, as well as interviews with enforcement and program personnel at both state and federal levels, this study examines the problem of physician fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. Major areas relevant to understanding this phenomenon and its control are presented and policy implications of present knowledge in the area are discussed.     

The metropolitan character of urbanization in Mexico, 1900-1988

The author analyzes trends in urbanization in Mexico during the twentieth century, with a focus on the impact of rapid industrialization since 1982. Sections are included on the interrelations among economic development, industrialization, and urbanization; stages, levels, and measures of urbanization; the development of the city system in Mexico; and stages in the growth of Mexico City. (SUMMARY IN ENG)     

Rogers v. Whitaker

The High Court of Australia affirmed the Supreme Court of New South Wales' determination that a doctor has a duty to warn a patient of any material risk involved in a proposed treatment. A risk is considered material if a reasonable person in similar circumstances would attach significance to the risk, or if the doctor is, or should be, cognizant that the particular patient would express concern about the risk. The trial court overruled the precept that a doctor could not be found negligent in warning a patient if the doctor acted within the purview of common practice, even though other practitioners may follow different procedures and regardless of the particular patient's concerns. In this case, Maree Whitaker became essentially blind after an unsucessful operation on her right eye caused sympathetic ophthalmia in her left eye. Although there was no question that the surgery had been performed with the requisite skill and care, Ms. Whitaker petitioned the court for relief due to the failure of the ophthalmologist, Dr. Christopher Rogers, to warn her of the possibility (approximately 1 in 14,000) that the sympathetic ophthalmia condition could develop. The trial court's award of damages was affirmed because, in spite of Ms. Whitaker's expressed specific concern that her "good eye" not be harmed, Dr. Rogers did not inform her of the potential risks associated with the surgery.