This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David B. Palmer, Esq; Mr Palmer practices law in the Washington, DC, and New York City offices of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103(3):343-345.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

It is amazing how quickly federal health care policy can come full circle. Just 3 years ago, the Reagan administration vehemently opposed the very existence of the federal medical review program, which was then called the Professional Standards Peer Review Organization (PSRO) program. Now, virtually the same program, under the new name of the Utilization and Quality Control Peer Review Organization, or the PRO program, is the "darling" of the federal budget cutters. The deregulation rhetoric that was in vogue at the beginning of the first term fell by the wayside when the administration perceived that PROs offered a mechanism to reduce substantially federal health care expenditures through administrative fiat. In 1984, while Congress was hotly debating whether the annual increase in prospective payments for hospitals under the diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) payment system should be limited to the inflation rate or the inflation rate plus 0.25%, the Health Care Financing . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Washington, DC

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?