PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10106618

Stark reality.

Abstract

On Feb. 9, 1989, amid considerable attention in the healthcare industry, Rep. Fortney H. ("Pete") Stark, D-CA, introduced in Congress the Ethics in Patient Referrals Act (H.R. 939). At the time, the so-called Stark bill would have effectively prohibited physicians from referring Medicare patients to any healthcare entity in which they had a financial interest, including hospitals, hospital departments, and physician-hospital joint ventures. The bill that emerged and was signed into law months later is but a shadow of its former self: The prohibition against physician referrals is directed only at certain clinical laboratories and certain relationships between physicians and the laboratories. Hospitals and physicians may be overly optimistic about the results of this most recent incursion into physician ownership. This was not the first government intrusion into physicians' financial affairs, and it is not likely to be the last. Congress will no doubt continue to focus attention on physicians and hospitals that seek revenues through joint investments in healthcare providers. In fact, Congress has already put referring physicians on notice, saying that if the Government Accounting Office finds evidence of inappropriate referrals, or increased Medicare costs, "it would be the intent of the relevant Committees to consider legislation banning referrals at the earliest possible date."

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E M Flanagan, D K Thiel. 1990. Stark reality.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10106618/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Eyewitness lineups: is the appearance-change instruction a good idea?

The Department of Justice's Guide for lineups recommends warning eyewitnesses that the culprit's appearance might have changed since the time of the crime. This appearance-change instruction (ACI) has never been empirically tested. A video crime with four culprits was viewed by 289 participants who then attempted to identify the culprits from four 6-person arrays that either included or did not include the culprit. Participants either received the ACI or not and all were warned that the culprit might or might not be in the arrays. The culprits varied in how much their appearance changed from the video to their lineup arrays, but the ACI did not improve identification decisions for any of the lineups. Collapsed over the four culprits, the ACI increased false alarms and filler identifications but did not increase culprit identifications. The ACI reduced confidence and increased response latency. Two processes that could account for these results are discussed, namely a decision criterion shift and a general increase in ecphoric similarity.

Crime↗