Quick access to ratings of nursing home quality

Over the years I've had plenty opportunities to observe nursing homes in action, not only for my parents' generation, but also for my own post-surgical rehab.  And, recently I've spent a good amount of time visiting an older friend who spent a lot of time in several nursing facilities in the Maryland suburbs.  This nursing home rating tool, made available through ProPublica, is an excellent summary source of information, and the information you can get by clicking on an individual home's profile dovetails with my own impressions of the various places I've recently seen.
So, I'm entering this post into my "citizen portals" label, recognizing that I (and you) may have plenty of reason to research information on potential nursing homes.  If a friend asks for advice, all you have to do is remember my blog's name:  www.theviewfrombethesda.blogspot.com  and they will be able to get to this applicaiton.

SCOTUS OPINION on Obamacare- Read it here!

Here is the C-span link to the Supreme Court opinion on the ACA.
Who would have thought that logic (i.e., a mandate that is enforced as a tax is a tax! and Medicaid is a voluntary program, that States can opt out of in pieces) would prevail?

Is this another switch in time that saved nine?  Or the opposite?  Only time will tell.  My relief tells me exactly where my own opinions lie.

What's the best outcome of SCOTUS on Obamacare?

Here we are, on the possible eve of the supreme court's decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  I've been grappling with what I want to see as the outcome, from the standpoint of what's good for the health care system, what's good for Obama's reelection, for the Democrats in Congress, and finally, for the crowd of  people who deeply believe that a single-payer health care system (a la Medicare) is best for the entire country.  To clarify, when I think about what's good for the health care system, I have in mind the ultimate effects on cost, quality and equality of access...those three competing objectives of public policies governing the delivery of health care.
What's good for Obama's re-election?  I believe the best thing for Obama politically speaking  is to have the whole bill nullified (except for the Medicare provisions, which nobody is talking about anyway).  That would wipe out the state-level exchanges, the insurance mandate (of course), and all the Medicaid provisions that expand access to Medicaid to all individuals and families with incomes less than 133% of the Federal poverty line (about $14K for individuals;  and $31K for a family of four).  I can't imagine how striking down the insurance mandate could leave in tact the ban on insurers discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions, or even the requirement to cover the under-26 crowd (even though some major insurers say they will keep that one.)
I think it would be good for voters to go back to square zero on health care.  It would take the fire out of the conservatives' righteously(?) indignant bellies over the mandate, while leaving the rest of the country to mull the alternatives.
What's good for the Democrats in Congress?  Re-election wise, see above.  Ideologically wise?  What ideology?  Dollars (theirs)  is what matters to them.
What's good for the Single-payer ideologues?  This is a no-brainer.  The mandate goes, the Medicaid provisions stay.  Most Americans do not realize that the Medicaid provisions, in addition to expanding eligibility, require Medicaid to pay for physician services at Medicare rates..  We hear a lot about how Medicare fees are low compared with private rates, but Medicaid fees are 30% lower than that!  And, to top it all off, the Federal government will pick up the entire tab for the health care costs of the new eligibles.  (Yes, yes, that's for 2 years, after which the Federal % drops to 90% and the Medicaid fee schedule rule drops, but who believes that the doctors won't have the clout to extend the fee schedule, just as they have managed to keep fees from plunging under Medicare's law by one-year extensions?)
Bottom line:  an extension of the Medicare-like single-payer system to a greater part of the population, and a gradual acclimation of the public to the idea that universal coverage can only come from a single-payer system.
What's good for the Health Care System?   At this point, I am rooting for a complete nullification, though  I am aware it's a long-shot.  That's because I don't believe in a single-payer system. So, what I mean is that if the mandate is going to be shot down, then I hope they shoot down Medicaid, too. That way, in having to start from scratch, perhaps Congress will put all the people into exchanges, which will treat the lower-income folks with the same respect they treat others. And, instead of  "exchanges," it should be "exchange."   I believe in a regulated market place (much like the Federal Employees Health care system) that offers competing plans meeting minimum coverage requirements.  The exchanges sounded like a good idea, but they are implemented at the state level, which doesn't allow much ability to pool risks, especially in smaller states.  (The state-level exchanges came from the Senate and its nefarious (Demorcatic) leadership, while the (Democratic) House bill had a national exchange system that would have guaranteed a large pool of enrollees.)
At this point, it would be worthwhile to go back to ground zero and let the nefarious Republican leadership deal with the consequences of its political intransigence and the public with another failure of our country to make access to health insurance (and therefore decent access to health care) a right.
What do you think?

A Great Guide to the Supreme Court's Upcoming Review of the Health Reform Law

The Supreme Court seems to be taking this seriously, admitting (???) that they need help in understanding the issues by scheduling 6 hours of argument (compared with usual 1 hour).  A great article in the New England Journal of Medicine, available without a subscription, lays out the issues and the timeline.  It's written for doctors, so it's actually readable for us all, since so many docs don't seem to understand anything about insurance markets and cost control (my editorial comment, of course).  Update as of Mar 15, another article in NEJM.  Clearly, the profession cares about this

Another great Health Reform Timeline online

From Kaiser Family Foundation...this one is a year-by-year breakdown of each provision, some more important than others.  See KFF Timeline.

Great summary of the Health Reform Act

The Kaiser Family Foundation has published a very readable Summary of the Health Reform Act in plain English, except for pesky abbreviations such as FPL (=federal poverty level). Some, possibly critical, details have been left out. For example, if you are going to be eligible for Medicaid, due to low income on your IRS tax form, will the State be able to place you in their managed care program, or will you have to go fee-for-service Medicaid? This is important, because at present most doctors don't accept Medicaid and you'll have trouble finding a provider. Little unimportant details like that.
Otherwise, it's a great place to start.

How to compare hospitals on quality measures

Here is a great site, from the Commonwealth Fund, Why Not the Best? that allows you to compare hospital scores on a range of quality measures. I just did it for Georgetown University Hospital, a bit late for my surgery that took place earlier this year, but I was gratified to learn that GU has a high quality rating. (Whew!)

Schedule for changes in the Medicare Part D benefit

If you want to know how your (or your loved-one's) Medicare Part D benefit will change over the next 10 years as a result of the health reform legislation, see this excellent and short summary from KFF: Key Changes to the Medicare Part D Coverage Gap. What the summary sheet doesn't tell you is what the changes mean for Part D premiums and government spending ... (up up up, of course). Still, if the benefit is out there for everyone else, we'd be stupid not to take our share, right?

Health Care Reform Timetable

Here's a good summary, from the Kaiser Family Foundation, of what will happen when, as health care reform ramps up over the next few years. See Health Care Reform Timetable.

Hypocritical congress manipulates CBO esimtates.

An old theory states that regulated industries ultimately "capture" the relgulators and are able to mold the rules to their own advantage. Too bad the theory always seems to work in practice. Now we're seeing it in the manipulation of the CBO scoring process by the "regulated" Congress. Keith Hennessey posted an example of how the House has crafted a Medicaid provision in the reconciliation bill that requires states to pay doctors the same as Medicare pays them, and HAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PICK UP THE TAB, without being charged with a $52 billion ten-year cost that CBO estimated for that provision in the original House Bill. The reconciliation bill limits the years in which those increased fees would apply to only two --- 2013 and 2014 -- which brings the cost down to only $8 billion over ten years.

Of course, everyone knows that once those increases go into effect, Congress will never let the fees go back to the old rules. Look what's happened to the physician fee reductions passed in 1997 for Medicare. Each year Congress passes an over-ride, and the reductions are "delayed" for another year. That's what will happen here. So, the health reform bill will effectively federalize Medicaid and add it to the Medicare fee-for-service system (the system that "works so well"). State leaders will love it. Less payout for Medicaid. Doctors will like it, and more of them will participate in Medicaid, which is good for poor people, and by extension the rest of us. Let's face it, though...our deficit hole will just grow and grow and grow.

CBO has no choice but to score the bill this way. It has to assume the law will operate as it says in the bill it's scoring at the time, not as it will play out in reality. This manipulation of legislative language by Congress has improved over time, so at this point the "CBO score" is largely a political football, with the majority using it to hide major new cost-raising changes.

This is just one of dozens of little "surprises" lurking in the bill -- which I admit I still have not read in full and probably never will. What I'm learning is from newspapers and internet. Keith Hennessey's blog is a jewel . I may not agree with him on priorities, but he's an excellent analyst of policy and politics. And he's not lazy. He actually read the reconcilation bill.

What the Senate health reform bill would do for women...but not for men

It's been a long time since I've posted on anything, especially on health reform, because I've been so conflicted. I want to see universal health coverage, and I want to see a regulated health exchange. To me, the Republicans' proposals are insipid because they ignore the realities of the individual insurance market. In short, insurance companies can't offer insurance to all with community rating in the individual and small business markets so long as health insurance is not mandatory, or at least difficult to escape without penalty. So, I want to see reform, and I care about it a lot for my family and friends.
But, those Democrats! Here's a perfect example of the problem. My own Senator Mikulski, ultra-liberal from Maryland, introduced with much emotion (and a speech laden with either stupid inaccuracies or outright lies -- I think the former) a bill that would cover annual preventive visits to doctors for all women for free. Here is Mikulski's own summary of her amendment. The Amendment passed with 61 votes and is part of the final Senate bill.
CBO estimated that it would add about a billion to costs over 10 years. But that's the cost of only about 5 years of actual coverage, since the law wouldn't go into effect until 4 years down the line.
What galls me is the over-reach of the liberals in both the Senate and House, not to mention the recent White House sweeteners, to mandate a rich set of benefits, when what people really need is to be covered when they are sick and scared.
What also galls me in particular about Mikulski is her discrimination against men. And I'm not even one.
I don't trust the Republicans when they say that they want to "just start over", but I can't trust the Democrats not to lard up a bill with new spending.
Bottom line: I hope it passes. Then I hope that the bill will be amended to take out all the stupid stuff, and add to taxes to pay for it. These hopes are also stupid, I know. That's why I haven't been blogging recently.

Wellness Discounts in Health Reform a real problem

Having already admitted that I cannot read the 4000+ total pages of legislative language in the two final bills (House and Senate) without giving up all other aspects of my life, I'm depending on secondary sources to uncover aspects of one or the other bill that are problematical. Here is what Kaiser Family Foundation says about one provision that sounds discriminatory against those with "lifestyle" issues. This affects people with employer based health insurance. Read KFF News on Wellness Program.

A good link to comparison of House & Senate Health Reform bills

Here's a good Q&A analysis of differences between the House and Senate bills as passed. Easy To read, from Kaiser Family Foundation.

Some early analysis of the Senate "Reid" Bill

Here is a great analysis of the Senate Bill by Keith Hennessey, a conservative, I think, but nevertheless, we should know what's in the bill, and his blog is accurate, though opinions are slanted. So I'm putting it up here, because I am just out of gas when it comes to analyzing the details of another 2000 page tome!
AND what's worse, these bills HAVE NO WORKABLE TABLE OF CONTENTS! Yes, they have a list of provisions, but they don't tell you the page. That's just a little bit of Congressional humor. "We want to tell you how to run an industry, but we can't adopt technology modern enough to create a table of contents for legislative proposals."

Why the House Health Care Reform bill is fatally flawed

Confession: I still haven't read beyond the first 225 pages of the House bill. I got that far because I wanted to understand the structure of the Health Insurance Exchange (HIE), especially how the public option (PO) would work. In a previous post, I concluded it was good enough, but worrisome in the long run .
But, today Martin Feldstein, a noted Harvard economist (not my favorite, but way smarter than I) has an op-ed piece in the Washington Post (Obamacare's Nasty Surprise) that lays out clearly why the House bill will not work as presently structured.
The basic flaw is that the law requires health plans to enroll all comers, regardless of health risk, but it doesn't provide carrots/sticks to individuals or businesses that are strong enough to induce the young and healthy to enroll. So, premiums will go up, kicking off a cycle of adverse selection into the HIE by the sick or high risk and opt out by the healthy.
There are ways to fix this problem, but apparently they are not in the bill, or surely Feldstein would have mentioned them.
One solution would be to charge anyone who does not sign up (or have qualified coverage) within the first year of the program a "premium penalty" for the rest of their lives. That's what happens with Medicare Part B, and why even the healthiest 65 year old is willing to pay right away. For every year of delay after you reach 65, Medicare adds 10% to the Part B premium for the rest of your life.
Another solution would be to increase income tax penalties.
A third solution would be to increase subsidies.
I like first idea, though, because instead of being seen as a "tax," the penalty would be seen as just retribution for a young person trying to game the system by delaying enrollment until he/she encounters the inevitable need for health care.
BUT... so far as I know, this solution isn't in current health reform proposals. Why not? That's where Feldstein sees the invisible hand of the single-payer lobby. As the cost of insurance goes up and up, and as fewer and fewer people are insured, a single-payer system will be the only alternative.
Design a HIE market to fail and you'll end up with a single-payer system. So many of my dear friends, family members, and readers want this outcome that I am in despair. Why do we think that a government monopoly is any better than a phone company monopoly in the way it will treat us? Supporting a move toward public monopoly of payment for health care is to say we want health care to be run the way that public education is currently run. Good teachers underpaid; average income children underserved; rich children opting out.
That's the best I can do by way of diatribe right now.
Have a great day.

How health reform will gradually evolve to single payer system

Leaving aside the pros and cons of a single-payer system (SPS), I'm beginning to believe that a SPS would be an inevitable consequence of any health reform proposal that contained a public option (PO), even one as benign as the current version of the House bill. (See my previous post on good points of that bill.)
I'm basing the scenario on my long-time experience as an enrollee in a prototype health insurance exchange (HIE), namely the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program (FEHB). FEHB has about 8 million enrollees, including current federal employees, their families, and retirees.
First off, I need to explain that the FEHB program is a regulated marketplace with open season at the end of every year, during which enrollees can choose among roughly 10 plans, depending on their place residence. Government subsidizes about 75% of the arverage plan's premiums (as do many employers.) Less subsidy goes to enrollees in richer plans. None of the plans are POs. All are private, but some are not-for-profit.
Here's what has happened to me over the 30 years of enrollment. When I was young and feeling good, I enrolled in a plan with relatively low premiums (never the lowest, cause I'm risk averse). As I got older and more needy, I opted for a richer plan, paying more in premiums but using health care more. Apparently, so did lots of other aging enrollees, because the costs of that plan began to skyrocket. And, that plan began to add draconian control features to the management of its benefit. And more and more doctors opted out of that plan's network. Finally, the costs got so high and my mistrust of the plan grew so much(especially in the past year) that I chose a low cost plan and paid more for visits and drugs than before. Overall, I might have paid more for health care (counting premiums and out-of-pocket) but at open season last December I was willing to take the gamble. This year, though, I'm torn, because the lower cost plan leaves me exposed to higher drug costs and less generous coverage of some services and devices that I might need in the coming year, given my decrepit state. So, right now I'm weighing a choice between two plans whose premiums vary by a ratio of more than 2 to 1. My choice is based on what I know now about my current state of health, which none of the plans can take into account in deciding to enroll me. That's the beauty of "open season" and "guaranteed issue."
Now fast-forward to a grand health insurance exchange, as envisioned in the House bill. That plan would also have a regulated market place with private insurers offering benefits that can differ within a defined range specified in the legislation. When I say "benefits", I mean things like the deductible, coinsurance or copayments, catastrophic limits on out-of-pocket expenses, networks of physicians, hospitals and other providers, care mangement techniques like prior authorization for expensive procedures, etc. An example of a limit on benefit variation is the requirement in the current House bill that every plan cover well child care visits with no copayment or coinsurance. (i.e., free well child care--costs would be covered through the premium assessed on all enrollees.)
Without a PO, the marketplace would behave similar to the FEHB program. People would check out premiums, networks, deductibles, etc., and would choose the best plan for them. Over time, there would be sorting of enrollees, and the costs of different plans might diverge. If the House bill became law, the young&healthy would enroll in the cheapest plan possible, while the old&sick would enroll in richer plans. This process would be mitigated to some extent because in the new marketplace, plans could vary premiums by age by a ratio of 2:1. (That's not true with FEHB, where we all pay the same premium.) So, in the House bill, the young&healthy would pay less for richer coverage and at least some might be induced to buy richer coverage.
Now, enter the Public Option (PO). Under the House bill, the amount that PO pays doctors and hospitals can never be greater than the average payment rates under private plans in the marketplace. Most likely the PO administrator will "negotiate" with doctors as follows: "We're paying Medicare rates. If you want to participate, fine. If not, hasta la vista." Lots of doctors might opt out of the public option, because right now Medicare rates are about 30% below private insurance rates. Hospitals may be stuck with the Medicare rates, though, because it could be very difficult for the major or only hospital in a community to thumb its nose at a public insurer. (I just don't know what hospitals will do.)
In any case, the PO premium is likely to be lower on average than those of private plans. Who will choose the more limited PO, with its more limited, perhaps less "elite" physician network? The young&healthy, of course. That will make it easier for the PO to pay for itself with lower premiums overall. Lots of young&healthies choosing the PO would mean that their premiums would be low, and the oldster's premiums would also be held down (by the 2:1 rule). Meanwhile, the private plans will attract us old&sicksters, and their premiums will be driven up. Eventually, some of the old&sicksters will give up on the "elite" docs and will enroll in the PO. This yin and yang will continue over time until, gradually, the PO (which still has the cost advantage due to payment of hospitals on Medicare rates) has become the behemoth. With lower and lower market share, private insurers will fail, merge, exit the market, etc., and real competition will be gone.
If you've read this far, I must tell you that I'm not completely sure of my prognostication. Competition is dynamic, innovation is inherent in markets such as this. I could be all wrong. That's why I'm not wringing my hands at the public option currently in the House bill. The uncertainty is great enough for me to say, okay, let's pass a law that makes health insurance affordable and get on with it. But, I'm mindful that the great long-term danger is the decline of the health care system into a single-payer system. Perhaps in the future I'll post something on why I'm so worried about single-payer system.

My first take on House Health Reform Bill

Ok, okay, so I've gotten through only the first 225 pages of the bill. (Read the 1,990-pages of the House "Affordable Care for America Act" yourself, if you think I should be faster!) I like this bill better than the Senate Finance concoction, but some things are worrisome.

The Good:

1. HIE Membership: All firms would eventually be allowed to enroll their employees through the health insurance exchange (HIE), thus encouraging over time a big pool of enrollees in this new system of competitive health care plans.
2. HIE Administration The HIE would be national in scope (though States may opt out), so the pool of enrollees would be large (very good) and the administrative expertise to set up and regulate the exchange would be centralized. (That's efficient.)
3. Premium Cost Structure within HIE: The range of premiums would be limited to a ratio of 2 to 1, so older people (the 50=64 crowd) wouldn't have to pay exhorbitant premiums.
4. The Public Option - participation: The public option (PO) will not require physicians to participate as a condition for them to participate in Medicare. That is, physician participation in the PO is largely unlinked from participation in Medicare. (This is very important in keeping the whole system from slipping into a single-payer Medicare program for all.
5. PO Payment rates to physicians: Physician payment rates under the PO would be negotiated but couldn't be more than the average rates paid by the private plans in the exchange. (Also can't be less Medicare rates.) So, if the PO administrator wanted to use the Medicare rates as the basis for participation, that would discourage doctors from participating, and the PO would become a bare bones plan in the sense that the availability of doctors to PO enrollees would be somewhat limited. (This would probably vary by area of the country.) You get what you pay for. Maybe quality for those people who choose the PO won't suffer. Who knows? What's quality in health care anyway? (If you think you know, you're wrong..Nobody knows, least of all myself.)
6. Participation of "Other Providers" in PO: The PO administrator would "negotiate" a rate at least as high as Medicare's DRG rates, and perhaps higher. The only practical "negotiation" on the part of the PO is to specify a multiple (say, 1.05) of the Medicare DRG rate. That higher-than-Medicare rate would mollify hospitals and other non-physician providers in the short run, and they would probably choose to participate, given the high fixed costs of hospital operation (volume is the name of the game for hospitals.) Now, this is good news, bad news, in my view, because other insurers may not have the market clout to demand that hospitals pay on a DRG basis, even one that's higher than the Medicare DRG rate. But, maybe insurers SHOULD play hardball with hospitals, and it is possible that this would encourage hospitals to take the lead in developing integrated systems of care (with doctors) that provide their own insurance offerings to people in their regions. That way, hospitals and physicians could share in cost-savings from delivering care more effectively and efficiently. In any case, hospitals' and other providers' ability to refuse to participate in the public option is an important safeguard for competition.

Worrisome things (other than cost, which I think we should pay for through a dedicated gasoline tax that brings prices at the pump to $4.00,..but that's another story and is so far beyond the fringe that I won't continue with it) will come in my next post, if I can ever slog through more pages of this bill.

What the Obama administration is doing wrong on the banks

Here's a great 10-minute interview in the New Yorker's Blog page of Joseph Stiglitz, a liberal economist, who is critical of the Obama Administration's handling of the economic crisis, particularly bank reform. What I like most about what Stiglitz (a Nobel prize winner) has to say is his defense of market mechanisms, properly regulated. This isn't about health reform, but if you keep it in the back of your mind as you listen to Stiglitz, you'll appreciate why I'm such a proponent of a regulated competitive market place for health insurance. Public plan could be in there, provided it doesn't use the leverage of the Medicare program to exact price concessions from hospitals and doctors that private insurers cannot.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Mayo Clinic

Today's Washington Post has an article about Mayo Clinic's decisions to opt out of Medicare for primary care in its Scottsdale Arizona campus and to refuse to accept Medicaid patients from certain mid-western states. Here's a link to an Oct. 9 news article in the Arizona Republic covering the Medicare decision .
Doctors all over the country refuse to accept Medicaid because of states' tendencies to pay even less for physician services than does Medicare. So, Mayo's opting out of some states is no big thing, in my view. The miracle is that they do participate in the Medicaid programs of MN, WI, ND and SD.
But, the decision of Mayo Scottsdale to refuse Medicare for primary care needs more consideration. Sounds heartless on its face, but my reading is different.
Here's what Mayo-Scottsdale is probably doing to stay within the confines of the law. It must be designating certain of its doctors (those manning one of its family practice facilities) as "opt-out" physicians. That Medicare jargon means that those doctors will not accept Medicare payment for any of their patients, and Mayo will not submit a bill on behalf of the patient for any of the services rendered by those doctors to Medicare patients. The patient is on the hook for the entire charge, and Medicare won't pay a penny for the services provided by an opt-out physician. Hear me? The patient cannot get a penny from Medicare when treated by an opt-out physician. Mayo is charging the Medicare patient who wishes to have a Mayo primary care physician an annual access fee of $250, plus fees for visits that are higher than the Medicare fee schedule allows.
Once the patient needs to see a specialist of any kind (say a radiologist, an endocrinologist, yada yada), or needs lab work, or special procedures, however, Mayo will bill Medicare on behalf of the patient. And, in that case, by law, Mayo must get no more than about 115% of the fee allowed by Medicare. So, the patient is completely on the hook at Mayo only for the services of the primary care internist.
Now, the unpleasant reality is that most Medicare patients who would pay, say, $1000 each year in excess fees are unlikely to be poor. So, the criticism of Mayo as catering to the elite in its primary care is somewhat valid. (Why do you think they located a new campus in Scottsdale in the first place?) But, --and here I am an expert as a sometime member of the Mayo (Rochester) staff and an occasional patient -- what the patient gets for that extra money is the kind of attention that most of us see only in Norman Rockwell paintings. First off, the Mayo community medicine doctor lets you talk and talk. You NEVER feel rushed. This is really true! He or she takes a thorough history. The visit almost always takes over a half-hour. (Time your next routine visit to your internist to compare.) You feel as if the doctor hears you. It's wonderful. Need a referral to a specialist? You get it, and you get it fast. Need lab work? It's done there, and the results come back quick. You're not left waiting for a month as you schedule that consult across town.
Does this make Mayo infallible? I haven't found it so. Those doctors have missed things in my case. Still, I never feel angry because I chalk it up to the inevitable imperfection of doctors in the face of mind-numbing variability and complexity of human disease. I've never chalked it up to the doctor not caring. Out here in the real world, though, I often do chalk it up to that.
Now, it's no secret that Medicare underpays for primary care services relative to specialist care. See Kaiser Family Foundation's background piece on the shortage of primary care docs. So, rather than start rushing patients through the system to meet its costs, Mayo has taken a stand against Medicare's crazy fee-for-service system. Lower income Medicare patients, or those who take umbrage, will have to see other docs for their primary care; they can still be referred by those doctors for specialty care at Mayo.
This is a signal to the Medicare fee-for-service system. You just don't work!

How to bend the health care cost curve- some good sources of info

The New England Journal of Medicine has three good articles about health reform this week. They are all free to non-subscribers and are easy to read and understand. Obviously, they're intended for doctors, but they explore the possibilities for bringing health care costs under control. The first one is a roundtable hosted by Atul Gawande, the now famous surgeon who writes in the New Yorker on health issues. David Cutler's article, which argues that cost moderation going to happen regardless of reform, is really interesting. But, if you want to know the politics of the Baucus bill, from a polished health journalist, read John Iglehart's summary of what's happening.