Two recent cases have raised important questions concerning the appropriateness of state intervention in parental choices of unorthodox medical treatment for children with life-threatening conditions. This Note first discusses whether, and if so, when, state intervention in a child's treatment selection by its parents is appropriate, and then analyzes the tests a court should apply in deciding upon an appropriate treatment. The Note recommends a decision-making approach that requires the appropriate state agency to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents' choice of medical treatment either is directly or is indirectly harming their child. Under this approach, if the state meets its burden of proof the court then must apply the ‘best interests’ test, rather than the ‘substituted judgment’ test, to choose an appropriate medical treatment for the child.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare recently proposed a “Family Responsibility Plan” which would impose a financial obligation upon adult children in the state for the nursing-home care of their parents who receive Medicaid. By examining the Massachusetts plan, this Note seeks to evaluate the viability of a concept of family responsibility, under which adult children contribute to the state Medicaid expenses of their medically indigent parents in nursing homes, as a means of combating the increase in state Medicaid expenditures. The Note examines the legal and policy issues raised by the Massachusetts welfare department's plan in particular, and by the concept of family responsibility in general. The author concludes that alternative methods of cost containment, such as positive financial incentives, would be more appropriate mechanisms for reducing state Medicaid expenditures than family—that is, adult child—responsibility plans.

Fifteen states have created Patient Compensation Funds in response to the increased cost and reduced availability of medical malpractice insurance associated with the so-called “medical malpractice crisis.” Patient Compensation Fund statutes limit health care providers’ liability to a specified amount, and establish state-administered funds to compensate victorious malpractice plaintiffs for damage awards in excess of that amount.

This Note examines the Patient Compensation Fund mechanism, evaluates its effectiveness as a compensation system for malpractice victims, and recommends particular provisions that might enhance its effectiveness. The Note concludes that the Patient Compensation Fund mechanism is an effective means of increasing the availability and of reducing the cost of medical malpractice insurance, and should be adopted by other states experiencing a “medical malpractice crisis.”

Until recently, contractual relationships between health care providers and health insurers appeared to be immune from antitrust scrutiny. The Supreme Court ended this apparent immunity in Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205 (1979), holding that insurance plans offering goods and services to policyholders are not exempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act from the federal antitrust laws. By denying a McCarran-Ferguson exemption, the Court did not decide the ultimate issue—whether the insurers in fact had violated federal antitrust law.

This Note reviews Royal Drug in light of precedent and of the purpose of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This Note contends that the result in Royal Drug follows logically and consistently from the Court's earlier readings of the Act, but that the Court's reasoning is unclear and, even under its strongest reading, unconvincing; hence, an alternative approach to interpreting and applying the McCarran-Ferguson Act is suggested. Finally, this Note analyzes the application of Royal Drug by lower federal courts and discusses its implications for the interface of health law and antitrust law.