Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Piper”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 379 records · Page 21Linked to original sources
PubMed1990

The Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986: time to pay the piper?

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), Public Law 94-142, provides for a free, appropriate public education for handicapped children, as well as due process procedures. However, the EAHCA does not directly address relief available to parents who successfully allege inappropriate actions by school. In this article, we examine case law that has provided three primary types of relief (injunctive relief, tuition reimbursement, and attorneys' fees) in special education lawsuits. The Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Robinson, (1984) which removed attorneys' fees for action under the EAHCA, is analyzed. The congressional reaction to Smith v. Robinson and the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986, Public Law 99-372, is described, and case law relying on that act is examined.

Child↗
PubMed2006

Paying the piper and calling the tune? Commissioners' evaluation of advocacy services for people with learning disabilities.

Increases in funding of advocacy schemes are leading to their general expansion in the UK. Little is known of how their activities are evaluated by funders. This article examines how local authorities evaluate the outcomes of advocacy schemes. It reports on and discusses the findings of a survey of local authorities. Respondents identified the types of support they provided to advocacy schemes and their requirements for service reports. Data are presented on the length of time that schemes have been funded, geographical variations and whether schemes are generalist or specialist. This analysis is set in the context of discussion with stakeholders. The authors conclude that monitoring and review systems are not well known or extensively used, that while user involvement in evaluation is seen as appropriate this is not well developed, but that advocacy services themselves are interested in contributing to processes of improvement and accountability.

Humans↗
PubMed2005

Who pays the piper?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Antipsychotic Agents↗
PubMed2000

Paying the piper: the crisis in chronic care.

The current article reviews the broad outlines of the crisis in chronic care with emphasis on Southern California, a region where the powerful forces buffeting health and long term care have reached gale force intensity. The article argues that a partial solution to the crisis lies in flexible local partnerships among patients, families, providers, and payers focused on helping the chronically ill cope with the tasks of daily life. Such partnerships would emphasize supportive care, prevention, family preservation, assistive devices, and family income supplementation through facilitation of productive work, aspects of chronic care neglected by current financing and service delivery practices. A case example, the Southern California-based Partners in Care Foundation's Family Care Network, illustrates these essential components of a revitalized, responsive chronic care system.

California↗
PubMed1985

Paying the piper and calling the tune: accountability in the human services.

The author reexamines the issue of accountability from the perspective of administrative implications for human service organizations, both voluntary and governmental. Financial and non-financial measures of organizational activity are explored, along with a series of political and pragmatic considerations, from the viewpoint of human service organization managers. Reviewed are the implications of accountability expectations within the areas of planning and budgeting, obtaining funds, allocating resources, record keeping, monitoring and evaluating, reporting, and auditing.

Efficiency↗
PubMed2005

Safety review of kava (Piper methysticum) by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration.

This systematic review discusses the proposed uses, dosing parameters, adverse effects, toxicology, interactions and mechanism of action of kava. The widespread concern regarding the potential hepatotoxicity of kava is discussed. A recommendation is made to consolidate and analyse available reports and to continue postmarket surveillance in an international repository to prevent duplicates and promote collection of thorough details at the time of each report so that any association with kava is clearly defined.

Data Collection↗
PubMed1980

He who pays the piper: foundations, the medical profession, and medical education reform.

The development of modern medical education was shaped by the medical profession's own reform strategies and by material and ideological support from the corporate class. This article examines how the Rockefeller medical philanthropies, the largest single source of funds for medical education reform from 1910 through the 1930s, forced the adoption of a specific reform--full-time clinical faculty--to make medicine serve the needs of capitalist society rather than the interests of the medical profession. Memorandums and letters from archival files demonstrate that foundation leaders believed the full-time plan would separate medical schools from the grip of practitioner-dominated medical societies, bringing all medical faculty under the control of foundations and university boards of trustees. This policy was to be a first step in rationalizing medical care and distributing the technical benefits and social-control functions of medicine to all segments of the population. The author traces the development of the full-time plan, its adoption as foundation policy, and the struggle over its implementation.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed1998

Criteria for prosthetic provision: "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

Previously instituted policies regarding prosthetic limb provision had been deemed dependable. A follow-up home visit study showed that 18 of 60 patients that had been provided with prostheses, did not make use of them. Analysis showed that three categories of patients made up the large majority of the non-users; double amputees, blind persons and those with psychiatric disorders. In order to attempt to eliminate the wastage of prosthetic provision to non-ambulators a new policy decision was made. Doubtful ambulators and those from the three aforementioned categories will be initially provided with temporary prostheses. Only after a period of months of temporary prosthetic usage at home will a decision be made as to whether a permanent prosthesis will be issued.

Adult↗