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.     

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.     

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.