These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Recent developments in the health care area.
    Author: Harper TD, Berg RN.
    Journal: J Med Assoc Ga; 1980 Sep; 69(9):785-7. PubMed ID: 7191438.
    Abstract:
    Of late, there have been several court decisions of significance in the United States in the health care area. In 1 case the Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether or not states were required to fund abortions under the Medicaid program. In a 2nd case, a lower court was required to determine whether a Professional Standards Review Organization (PSRO) was a federal agency subject to the disclosure requirements of the federal Freedom of Information Act. Both of these issues are discussed. The Supreme Court authoritatively and conclusively established that a woman has no constitutional right to a state or federally funded abortion and with this ruling resolved several contrary lower court decisions and extended Congressional power to limit the expenditure of federal funds. Congress has established by a funding exclusion commonly referred to as the "Hyde Amendment," a limitation upon the expenditure of federally appropriated funds provided pursuant to Title 19 of the Social Security Act (Medicaid). A United States District Court in Georgia held that this exclusion was not to affect a state's duty to fund abortions deemed to be "medically necessary." A United States District Court in New York held the Hyde Amendment to be unconstitutional for failing to require funding of abortions that were deemed medically necessary. Contrary to the Georgia Court's ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the Medicaid program provides no unilateral funding obligation for a state which chooses to participate in the system. Contrary to the New York Court's ruling, the Sumpreme Court concluded that the Hyde Amendment is not constitutionally deficient. The Supreme Court determined that the limitation of abortion funding does not constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment and that the limitation upon funding does not constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The District Court in the District of Columbia determined that the PSRO was clothed with "indicia of agency status" and thus was an "agency" within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act. This decision resulted in a furor among the numerous PSROs and among the persons and institutions providing information and records to those entitites. Recently, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania refused to find that a PSRO was an "agency" within the meaning of the FOI Act.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]