Compelled authorizations for disclosure of health records: magnitude and implications

Each year individuals are required to execute millions of authorizations for the release of their health records as a condition of employment, applying for various types of insurance, and submitting claims for benefits. Generally, there are no restrictions on the scope of information released pursuant to these compelled authorizations, and the development of a nationwide system of interoperable electronic health records will increase the amount of health information released. After quantifying the extent of these disclosures, this article discusses why it is important to limit disclosures of health information for nonmedical purposes as well as how it may be possible to do so.     

A behavioral analysis of incentive prompts for motivating seat belt use

The seat belt usage of drivers was observed at the entrance to two campus parking lots during morning arrival times. After 11 days of baseline, fliers which prompted seat belt wearing were handed to drivers of incoming vehicles. At one parking lot all fliers offered a chance to win a prize (noncontingent rewards); while at the second lot only those fliers given to seat belt wearers included a chance to win a prize (contingent rewards). After 24 consecutive observation days, these interventions were removed for 14 days of withdrawal. The recording of vehicle license plates enabled an analysis of belt usage per individual over repeated exposures to the experimental conditions. At the lot with the contingent reward intervention, mean belt usage was 26.3% during baseline, 45.7% during treatment, and 37.9% during withdrawal. At the noncontingent reward lot, the mean percentage of belt wearing was 22.2% during baseline, 24.1% during treatment, and 21.8% during withdrawal. The analysis of repeated exposures per individual verified that only contingent rewards influenced substantial increases in belt wearing, and showed that most of the influence occurred after the initial incentive prompt.     

Two principles of Bayesian epistemology

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Colloquium on Logic, Probability, and Methodology at the A. P. A. Eastern Division Meetings in December 1987. I am indebted to all those who participated in that discussion, and especially to Teddy Seidenfeld and Bas C. van Fraassen.     

Standard and non-standard Newcomb Problems

Examples involving common causes — most prominently, examples involving genetically influenced choices — are analytically equivalent not to standard Newcomb Problems — in which the Predictor genuinely predicts the agent's decision — but to non-standard Newcomb Problems — in which the Predictor guarantees the truth of her predictions by interfering with the agent's decision to make the agent choose as it was predicted she would. When properly qualified, causal and epistemic decision theories diverge only on standard — not on non-standard — Newcomb Problems, and thus not on examples involving common causes.     

Is epistemic circularity a fallacy?

Philosophical Studies - The author uses a series of potential counterexamples to argue against attempts by Bergmann and Plantinga to articulate a distinction between malignant and benign epistemic...     

Charles Seymour,A Theodicy of Hell (Studies in Philosophy and Religion,Vol. 20)

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion -