Reducing public expenditures for physician services: the price of paying less

The purpose of this paper is to examine how physicians respond to changes in payment levels from government insurers. Our analysis focuses on two issues: controlling overall program expenditures, and assuring full access to care for program clients. We review evidence from natural experiments in which payment levels were increased, frozen, or decreased. These studies show that freezing or reducing payment levels is not effective in controlling program expenditures, because physicians responded by increasing the quantity and complexity of services provided. Furthermore, when government programs freeze or reduce their payment levels, physicians are less likely to treat the clients of these programs. We conclude that policymakers must seek alternative strategies for controlling program expenditures.     

A Person-Centered Approach to Adolescent Nonsuicidal Self-Injury: Predictors and Correlates in a Community Sample

Journal of Youth and Adolescence - Growing incidence of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) and a lack of intensive examination of NSSI variability among adolescents justify identification of latent...     

Lines and shadows: Perceptions of racial profiling and the Hispanic experience

Despite a longstanding research tradition examining the intersection of policing and race, extant research focused almost exclusively on race and ethnicity in Black and White terms. As such, academic knowledge of the Hispanic experience remained opaque. In this study, data from a random sample of New York City residents were used to compare the perceptions of racial profiling among Hispanic and non-Hispanic citizens. In particular, factors relating to the perception that racial profiling was widespread, justified, and personally experienced were examined. Findings were grounded within the literature on police-citizen relations and racial profiling.     

The Effect of Image Quality and Forensic Expertise in Facial Image Comparisons

Images of perpetrators in surveillance video footage are often used as evidence in court. In this study, identification accuracy was compared for forensic experts and untrained persons in facial image comparisons as well as the impact of image quality. Participants viewed thirty image pairs and were asked to rate the level of support garnered from their observations for concluding whether or not the two images showed the same person. Forensic experts reached their conclusions with significantly fewer errors than did untrained participants. They were also better than novices at determining when two high‐quality images depicted the same person. Notably, lower image quality led to more careful conclusions by experts, but not for untrained participants. In summary, the untrained participants had more false negatives and false positives than experts, which in the latter case could lead to a higher risk of an innocent person being convicted for an untrained witness.     

The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) and faith‐based NGO aid to Africa

The authors examine the role of international faith‐based NGOs in foreign aid and development assistance for Africa, with special reference to the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC). The MCC is successful in its contribution to development and empowerment in the 20 African countries in which it works because of its philosophical and programmatic focus on accountability, its holistic approach to basic rights, and a ‘listen and learn’ approach which embraces empowerment and social justice. Although a ‘small is beautiful’ philosophy does not necessarily feed the ‘quick fix’ methods associated with the New Policy Agenda, it remains the most effective, efficient, accountable, and grassroots‐responsive way of dealing with development issues.     

The Impact of Supreme Court Activity on the Judicial Agenda

When the Supreme Court takes action, it establishes national policy within an issue area. A traditional, legal view holds that the decisions of the Court settle questions of law and thereby close the door on future litigation, reducing the need for future attention to that issue. Alternatively, an emerging interest group perspective suggests the Court, in deciding cases, provides signals that encourage additional attention to particular issues. I examine these competing perspectives of what happens in the federal courts after Supreme Court decisions. My results indicate that while Supreme Court decisions generally settle areas of law in terms of overall litigation rates, they also introduce new information that leads to increases in the attention of judges and interest groups to those particular issues.