The
National Trust opposes the Mid-City hospital plan and wants the state to
build a new medical facility within the shell of Charity Hospital.
[Full
text not yet available due to technical difficulties at nola.com]
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/new_hospital_plans_bring_outcr.html
[BACK TO TOP]
By
MARSHA SHULER
The
Jindal administration has identified a source of funding to open a regional
mental health emergency unit at LSU’s Earl
K. Long
Medical Center
in Baton Rouge,
a prime mover in the project said Tuesday.
Capital
Area Health and Human Services District executive director Jan Kasofsky said the funding — provided through the state
health agency’s budget — will clear the way for an October opening of the
20-bed unit.
“It’s
going to happen,” Kasofsky said.
The
opening of the recently completed unit had been put on hold because of a lack
of funding to provide staff and other resources.
Project
supporters were surprised to learn after the recent legislative session that
no money had been appropriated in the state budget for LSU operation of the
unit recently constructed with federal funds. The unit, at EKL’s Airline
Highway site, has a proposed annual initial
budget of $4.3 million, including start-up costs.
The
unit is designed to relieve area hospital emergency rooms of mental health
cases that divert attention away from medical problems and to give those in
distress the help they need at a central location.
“We
are looking at this as a portal for people in crisis who need to be connected
to on-going care,” Kasofsky said.
State
Department of Health and Hospitals spokesman Rene Milligan said some $350,000
in seed money will come from a $7 million pot of funds that had been reserved
for the opening of similar mental health emergency units.
“We
anticipated there would be multiple facilities to take advantage of that
funding this year,” Milligan said. But, he said,
only West Jefferson Medical
Center has so far
become eligible. That frees up some state funding for the Earl K. Long
facility opening, he said.
The
$350,000 will be used to pay for psychiatrists and other expenses the state
cannot receive reimbursement from Medicaid for uninsured care, Milligan said.
Medicaid uninsured care dollars will go to cover other expenses, he said.
“Rather
than let the new public mental health unit languish,
we will use $350,000 to pay Capital Area for costs,” Milligan said.
LSU
System Vice President Fred Cerise said the funding plan proposed by the state
health agency “sounds like it will be workable.”
The
LSU Board of Supervisors has approved the donation of the building constructed
on LSU property by Capital Area, he said.
The
mental health unit is part of a program to address mental health needs in the
area. It is designed to provide law enforcement and others a single place to
take people with behavioral health problems threatening to themselves and
others.
The
unit will run 24-hours a day, seven days a week as an offshoot of the
hospital’s emergency room, Kasofsky said.
LSU
plans to see people first in its regular emergency room so they can be
checked out for medical problems, then move the
patient to the special mental health unit, she said.
Kasofsky said there will be 24-hour
psychiatrist coverage but the physician won’t be on the premises all day.
Other staff will include nurses, social workers, clerical staff, security and
other mental health professionals.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/politics/53632597.html?showAll=y&c=y#
[BACK TO TOP]
Over
the past month, we’ve come to know more of the details about President Barack
Obama’s health-care “reform” plan. Sadly, this proposal is nothing more than
a government-run health-care program.
What
ultimately happens in this health-care debate could permanently grow the size
and scope of the federal government and its role in our economy.
Knowing
this, and what’s at stake, I’ve joined together with Rep. John Fleming,
R-Minden, to apply pressure to the Washington
politicians by requiring members of the House of Representatives, senators
and their families to join any public health plan that they want to create
for Louisianians and the rest of the country.
As
John did weeks ago in the U.S. House of Representatives, I also recently
introduced very straightforward legislation that would require members of
Congress to lead by example and enroll in the very same government-run
health-care plan that they create for their constituents.
Current
proposals supported by the president and his liberal allies in Congress
curiously exempt members of Congress from the government-run health-care
option. Think about that for a moment: the people’s representatives in Washington
would get to keep their ability to choose from a multitude of different
health plans and care options on Capitol Hill — all while pushing a
“one-size-fits-all” plan for the rest of America.
Congress
has the bad habit of exempting itself from the problems it inflicts on the
American people. From common workplace protections to transparency and
accountability measures, lawmakers always seem to place themselves just out
of reach of the laws they create.
Currently,
members of Congress enjoy the benefit of an exclusive, on-call attending
physician as well as VIP access and admission to Walter
Reed Army
Medical Center
and Bethesda Naval Medical
Center.
They
won’t be quick to give up perks such as these, but it is past time that we
make the men and women making the laws endure the same consequences as the
American public.
There
is no doubt that Americans need and deserve quality health-care reform. The system,
as it stands now, does not provide access to affordable and quality care for
all of our citizens. We need to lower health-care and premium costs for
Americans, increase portability and increase competition among insurers.
What
we don’t need is to insert government into the system. Government-run care
will only lead to decreased quality of care, more taxes and DMV-style
medicine run by bureaucrats.
We
deserve health-care reform that leaves a patient’s well-being in the hands of
a doctor, not a bureaucrat.
U.S.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La.
member
of Congress
Metairie
http://www.2theadvocate.com/opinion/53628417.html
[BACK TO TOP]
La. swine flu estimate: 20,000
State
health officials estimate Louisiana
has had 20,000 cases of swine flu since the outbreak began in April and most
of those who have contracted the disease are children and young adults ages 5 to 24 years old.
The
least likely group to get the swine flu are people 65 years or older.
Out
of the 449 confirmed cases of swine flu in Louisiana, no one in the 65 years old or
older group has tested positive for the disease, according to a weekly
influenza report prepared by the state’s Department of Health and Hospitals.
“Older
people may have been exposed to a lot of flu over the years
that was similar to swine flu,” said Dr. Raoult
Ratard, the state’s epidemiologist. “These people
may now have some low level of immunity to it.”
The
state used a formula developed by the federal Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in Atlanta to estimate the
number of cases of swine flu in the state since it was first discovered in Mexico in
April, Ratard said.
The
state is divided into nine regions by DHH and the swine flu, or novel H1N1,
has been detected in all regions. Swine flu symptoms are similar to those of
other flulike respiratory illnesses — fever, cough,
sore throat, body aches and fatigue. In a few cases, there has been
intestinal upset.
While
the number of swine flu cases are estimates, what
has become clear is that the disease is targeting young people — about 65
percent of the cases in state have been children and young adults ages 5 to
24 years old, according to the state’s weekly report.
“It
is not obvious why swine flu is affecting children,” Ratard
said. “What is obvious, though, is it seems to affect older children and
young adults.”
Over
the weekend, swine flu hit Sorority Row at LSU when about 20 students
contracted the flu during Greek rush week.
That
number jumped to 52 confirmed cases by Tuesday, said Herb Vincent, LSU
associate vice chancellor for communications.
“A
lot of students are going to the clinic and getting tested,” Vincent said
Tuesday. “Out of 35 students tested today, 10 tested positive.”
The
students tested positive for Type A influenza which
state health officials assume is swine flu, said Frank Welch, medical
director for Pandemic Preparedness for DHH’s Office
of Public Health in a recent interview.
“In
a normal summer there are few if any flu cases,” Welch said. “So you can
assume the flu cases we’re seeing now are swine flu.”
Vincent
said that the students’ symptoms have been mild to moderate.
“That
tells us that they’re
getting to the doctor early,” he said, adding the university
has sent “e-mail blasts” to students updating them and educating them on
hygiene tips.
Central High School was also struck by
swine flu when 20 players on the school’s football team tested positive for
Type A flu about two weeks ago.
Bill
Michelet, a spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge, said one case
of swine flu has been reported in the diocese’s schools, in Pointe Coupee in
New Roads.
Parents
were notified Monday about the case when the school sent out automated
telephone messages.
Michelet
said that the diocese is following the CDC’s guidelines for schools, which
recommends that schools stay open even if there are cases of swine flu.
He
also said that students with swine flu will not be allowed to return to
school until they’ve been fever-free for 24 hours.
“They
also have to have a note from their doctor,” Michelet said.
East
Baton Rouge Parish schools have had no reported cases of swine flu, said
Chris Trahan, a spokesman for the school district.
“We
are going to be communicating with our principals once a week to see where we
are,” Trahan said. “We’ve asked them to notify us if they notice a high rate
of absenteeism.”
He
said the district is also monitoring CDC’s guidelines for schools.
The
CDC has announced that a swine flu vaccine is scheduled to be available
sometime in the fall — maybe as early as October.
It
is expected that at first a limited supply will be available. The CDC has
said that priority will be first given to pregnant women, caretakers of
children younger than 6 months, health-care workers, children 6 months to 4
years old and children 5 through 18 years old with chronic medical
conditions.
Trahan
said that if the CDC recommends that school districts provide the shots, then
the district would do that.
“We’ll
probably end up giving them at school,” he said. “But we really haven’t
gotten that far yet.”
Southern
University officials also said Tuesday they have had no reported cases of
swine flu.
“We
have a plan in place in case a student does test positive,” said Shirley
Wade, director of Student Health Services at Southern.
She
said the clinic has several hundred rapid test kits available as well as Tamiflu. If a student tests positive, they will be given
a dose of Tamiflu and sent to a local hospital.
“We
will also get a second specimen from the student and deliver that to the
hospital for further testing,” she said.
Wade
said the university is trying to be proactive.
“We’re are inundating our students with information,” she
said. “If you have the knowledge, then you know what to do.”
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/53632762.html?showAll=y&c=y
[BACK TO TOP]
La. panel seeks to streamline
BATON
ROUGE — Cutting state payroll is the easiest way to shrink the size and
budget of state government, members of a state streamlining panel said
Tuesday, but it has to be done strategically to preserve services.
But
even some of those services could be on the chopping block if the Legislature
would do it, said State Treasurer John Kennedy, a member of the Commission on
Streamlining Government. The panel was created in this year's legislative
session with the backing of Gov. Bobby Jindal and is looking at ways to
reduce state spending.
"There's a lot of things we should do, and everybody knows
we should do, but we can't because of politics," Kennedy said after
chairing the overall panel's Subcommittee on Efficiency. "The real issue
is having the political guts to do it, and the jury's still out" on
whether state lawmakers are willing to make tough decisions.
"The
fairy godmother died," he said. "She's gone," so no one is
going to wave a magic wand and get the state out of the impending $4 billion
budget hole over the next two years.
Research
found that Louisiana
has 15,000 more state employees than other Southern states, and that doesn't
include the state hospital system.
"We
rank eighth in the country in spending per capita and we rank No. 1 in the number
of state employees per capita," Kennedy said. "We can reduce that
through attrition and reorganizing and save $1 billion."
Leonel Hardman, a panel member representing
the AFL-CIO, said that too often "streamlining government (by cutting
employees) is not coming from the top. It's coming from the bottom," the
people who provide services to the public.
Kennedy's
subcommittee heard from two former state employees who have tracked the
growth of state government and have suggested reductions in the past.
Former
Legislative Fiscal Officer John Rombach, who yearly
presented lists of possible cuts to lawmakers only to have them rejected,
said the streamlining panel and a related one on higher education need to
consider eliminating or downgrading some of the state's four-year
universities.
He
said the state needs to set up a tier system for funding schools because
"the funding problem disappears when you tier the schools, besides
having too many universities and too few community colleges."
Asked
about what to do about health care, Rombach said:
"You need to get care into the community. We're an over-hospitalized
state. There's too many of them. We're spending a ton of money on Medicaid
and Medicare."
Kennedy
said the state has 1.2 million people — more than one-fourth of the
population — on Medicaid and 600,000 on Medicare. He includes LACHIP, the
state's health insurance program for children, in the Medicaid numbers.
Medicare
and Medicaid are a type of insurance, he said, but another 800,000 people
have no form of insurance, so they traditionally rely on the state charity
hospital system.
Kennedy
said the state spends an average of $4,439 for Medicaid recipients and the
average medical insurance policy costs about $4,200, so the state should
consult with insurance companies to offer a group policy.
Rombach said that was considered when the
governor was head of the Department of Health and Hospitals and his successor
continued looking into it, but the idea was dropped for some reason.
C.B.
Forgotston, former chief attorney for the House
Appropriations Committee who now operates a political blog, told the panel:
"The state's got to learn to do less with less." He said state
government has grown too big and tries to do too much.
"We're
still operating under a system of government established by Huey Long,"
he said. "We haven't changed a thing."
Forgotston said if the
Legislature would look at the state constitution, it would find that it's
funding too many things, especially local government operations and local
projects.
The
state is spending billions of dollars on local projects and services, he
said, and although the governor has reduced the number of
"non-governmental organizations" getting funding, it's still about
$25 million of the state budget.
"We're
past trimming fat," he said after the meeting. "We need a Lap-Band
(weight-loss surgery that restricts consumption) and should look at
amputation."
The
pre-Hurricane Katrina state budget in 2005 was about half of what it is now,
he said, and state government was functioning as it always had, "so we
were last in everything that's good and first in everything that's bad. Four
years later, the budget's almost double, we've got 100,000 less people and
we're still the same."
"It
takes guts but that's what we lack in the Legislature and we don't have any
leadership," he said. "We've got to get rid of big functions, like
funding local government."
Forgotston said if the state
did that, it would no longer need a 4-cent sales tax and it could allow local
governments to impose more sales tax to pick up the difference.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20090819/NEWS01/908190304
[BACK TO TOP]
Sec. Levine of Louisiana Health, Hospitals Opines On Obama Plan,
Video
How
will the current Barack Obama-Democrat driven plan impact Louisiana?
Yesterday,
I questioned this. So much has been
written about the national effects, but very few words of its local impact.
Since,
I remain uncertain about the pros and cons of the current plan and since I
want to look at all of the perspectives, I published a column and a video
by Mike Staff of Lafayette who ran for Governor in 2003 against Bobby Jindal
and others and who has been involved in technology and health care and other
technology issues. On Monday night, I
emailed the video to Alan Levine, the Secretary of Louisiana’s Department of
Health and Hospitals. I wanted to
understand how he felt about the Obama plan and about the Mike Stagg
video. Due to his busy schedule,
Secretary Levine was unable to quickly respond. He did so yesterday. Here is Secretary Levine’s response to the
Stagg video (which favors the Obama plan) and to the current Obama plan:
I’d
have to say this is somewhat disingenuous (Bayoubuzz
Note: Secretary Levine is referring to the Mike Stagg video).
1. The most immediate threat to our
Medicaid program right now is the more than $140 million cut we are going to
take next year due to the new DSH Audit Rule.
The Obama administration is moving forward with the rule. Efforts to reduce DSH payments began in the
Clinton Administration, continued in the Bush
Administration and now seem to be continuing through the Obama
administration. President Obama could
solve this issue for us immediately by rescinding the rule.
2. The next big threat is the loss of
Federal Match in Medicaid. We will
lose an annualized amount of $1 billion beginning next year. This is because of the huge drop in our
federal match resulting from Katrina/Rita recovery dollars. I have met with the Administration, and
beyond telling me Congress must fix it, they have not taken an active
interest in helping us push the issue.
We
are facing a major crisis in our Medicaid funding, and its
almost exclusively due to federal policies.
There are some revenue challenges created by our state’s revenue
picture, but the Governor and Legislature did use some rainy day funds to
help fill the gap. Also, we are
fortunate in that one of the Bush Administration’s last actions was to
provide us with $130 million in SSBG funding related to Gustav. The state was able to use $93 million of
those dollars to free up state general fund.
We used that state general fund in Medicaid. $45 million of it was used to draw down
another $200 million, which is being distributed to hospitals in the Greater
New Orleans area. The other $48
million was used to draw down another $200+million, which we used to reduce
the Medicaid cuts from what they would have been.
The
video makes no mention of the extraordinary efforts made by the Governor and
DHH to mitigate the reductions, while also being responsible about ensuring
we are prepared for the HUGE cuts we are going to receive from the Federal
government beginning in this coming budget.
I
have a lot of comments about the reforms being discussed in Congress. But the one question you do ask is whether
this is socialism. The answer is not a
subjective one. Socialism is a defined
term in the dictionary, and by its very definition, the Government entering a
private marketplace is socialist. When
the Government controls a means of production, that is, by definition,
socialist. So, its
not a question of whether it is socialist.
It is. The real question is
whether Americans want that type of system.
We
can have a discussion about that any time you like. But if you actually read the language of
the bill, and consider the marketplace reaction to that language, it is clear
the impact will be profound – and in my opinion, not in a good way.
http://bayoubuzz.twi.bz/a
[BACK TO TOP]
The
Hill reports on Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' backpedaling on comments she made Sunday that a
public option "isn't essential" to a reform package: "'Here's
the bottom line. Absolutely nothing has changed. We continue to support the
public option that will help lower costs, give American consumers more choice
and keep private insurers honest,' Sebelius said.
'The public option is a very good way to do this,' she added" (Youngman,
8/18).
White
House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration continues its
support for the public option, Roll Call reports: "Obama's position is
'unchanged,' said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who reiterated a
previously stated position that the public insurance option is a preferred
strategy but not a necessary precondition for Obama to accept a bill" (Koffler, 8/18).
CongressDaily: "White House
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said this morning that reports of a shift in
administration policy were exaggerated, and the White House did not intend to
signal a new position. 'If it was a signal, it was a
dog whistle we started blowing weeks ago'" Gibbs said today" (Hunt,
8/18).
Liberal
Democrats are expressing displeasure over the White House's apparent
abandonment of the public plan option as part of sweeping health overhaul
proposals, NPR reports.
"In
a letter Monday to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive
Caucus and the head of the Congressional Black Caucus said a public option is
pivotal in any overhaul of the nation's health care system. Some 60 lawmakers
signed the letter." The lawmakers see the public option as key to
controlling cost in a Medicare-like system.
"But
the public option has run into opposition from moderate Democrats in the
Senate. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told (NPR's Robert) Siegel on Monday that for
any health care measure to pass the Senate, it cannot include a
government-run, public insurance plan" (All Things Considered, 8/18).
Obama
and his administration officials were unprepared for the flak over the public
option, The Washington Post reports: "at a time when the president had
hoped to be selling middle-class voters on how insurance reforms would
benefit them, the White House instead finds itself mired in a Democratic
Party feud over an issue it never intended to spotlight."
"The
president has maneuvered gingerly around the issue of a public plan, largely
maintaining that he prefers to include the public option in a new insurance
marketplace. He often argues that competition from a government plan --
without high executive salaries and the need to post profits -- could keep
big insurance companies 'honest.' But Obama and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have also signaled a willingness to consider
other avenues" (Shear and Connolly, 8/19).
The
Washington Post also has a timeline of Obama's comments on the public option.
In
a "Fact Check" article, The Associated Press reports the White House
did shift insistence on a public plan, even though it says it did not:
"During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said a new public plan
should offer comprehensive insurance similar to that available to federal
employees. In the first half of the year, Obama said repeatedly in speeches,
weekly radio and Internet addresses and town halls that he wants a health
care overhaul that has a taxpayer-funded public health insurance option. He
has said the plan would compete with private insurance to keep costs
down."
Liberals
cried foul "when Obama hedged this weekend in Colorado (on inclusion of a public
option)" and other administration officials followed his lead. But the
White House insists "that the rhetoric hadn't shifted.
'Must include' became 'whether we have it or don't have it'"
(Elliot, 8/19).
The
Philadelphia Inquirer explains the differences of opinion on the public
option and notes: "Both parties in Congress agree on about 80 percent of
the health-care agenda - such as getting rid of preexisting-condition
exclusions, and requiring individuals to buy insurance while offering
subsidies to people who can't afford it" but disagree on how to do it. (Vitez, 8/18).
Some
physicians are fans of co-ops, The Boston Globe reports: "Specialists,
including advocates for cooperatives, said in interviews that their
patient-controlled structure and nonprofit status are not what will
ultimately prove most useful. Rather, it is the way they pay doctors and care
for patients that holds the most potential for savings."
"There
are only a few large health cooperatives in the country. They typically
combine a health insurance plan with networks of doctors and hospitals.
Unlike most private insurance plans or HMOs, they are mutual plans, owned and
overseen by patients through a board of trustees. They maintain slim margins,
using leftover funds to expand treatment or lower premiums" (Kranish, 8/19).
ABC
News features health policy experts weighing in on the merits between the
public option and co-ops (Cox, 8/18).
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/August/19/Coop-Drama.aspx
[BACK TO TOP]
In
the last week, the biggest health care furor to take place outside the
sweaty, screamy town halls was the Obama
administration's tacit, and possibly unintentional, admission that it was
backtracking on a government-run insurance program -- a "public option."
The debate over the public option is often a battle of two caricatures:
Republicans call public insurance "socialism" while Democrats call
it a necessary litmus test of their party's cajones.
So
it's both surprising and and refreshing to read
Steven Pearlstein, the business columnist for the Washington Post who's
received a lot of link-love from liberal bloggers, begin today's column:
"Enough
already with the public option!"
I
suspect that this part will sting liberals particularly sharply:
The public option has become for the left
what "death panels" have become for the right -- an easily
understood metaphor that can be used to wage an ideological war over the
issue of Big Government, and mostly a sideshow.
That's
a little hyperbolic perhaps -- the public option appears in the House bills;
the "death panels" are a figure of Sarah Palin's
excitable imagination -- but it raises an important point that the public
option is, perhaps, expendable. Defenders of the provision argue that a
strong public option is necessary to both deliver quality care for the
uninsured and to use the government's size and bargaining power (it doesn't
have to turn a profit) to drive down prices and push for quality care over
expensive over-treatment. Some opponents say it sets a ball rolling down the
hill that ends in the valley of socialism.
Still
other detractors point out something much less hyperbolic: There isn't great
evidence that the House version of the public plan would do much to control
costs outside the 10-year window in which Obama has promised to account for
the trillion dollars he spends on health care. The CBO, stocked as it is with
health care quants, actually said the House bill
bends the cost curve in
the wrong direction.
My
takeaway is this: We don't know if any of the health care bills in
consideration will achieve significant savings in the long-term, the public
plan included. Even Slate's Tim Noah, a stalwart defender of the provision,
says it wouldn't smother health care inflation, it
would just nudge it down at best. The reason cost-savings are nearly
impossible in our system is that what policy experts call "expendable
fat," insurance companies and doctors call "income." The real
myth in the health care debate today isn't really "public option," it's "long-term savings." The only sure recourse
to exploding deficits is more taxes. In the end only one thing is certain:
We'll all have to pay.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/08/is_the_public_option_for_health_care_overrated.php
[BACK TO TOP]
Misc Opinions And Editorials from around the web
The Public Plan
The New York Times
Obama
should not give up without first getting a strong alternative to achieve the
same goals — and so far there is nothing very strong on the political horizon
(8/18).
Healthcare
Reform Doesn't Hinge On Public Insurance Plan The Los Angeles Times
When
the Obama administration signaled this week that it was backing away from a
public plan, it wasn't putting the kibosh on meaningful change (David
Lazarus, 8/19).
The
Death Book For Veterans Wall Street Journal
If
President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with
end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might
begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (Jim Towey,
8/18).
What
If The Problem Is Too Much Care? The Baltimore Sun
A
physician who knows that a procedure is not going to take any money out of a
patient's pocket is going to be more likely to order the procedure, even if
he thinks it is only of marginal benefit (Phil Manger, 8/19).
Whole-Grain
Health Reform The Washington Post
Now
is the time for all good capitalists to shop at Whole Foods. Not only will
you get great produce, fresh meat, fish and healthy to-go meals, but you'll
irritate those who think that President Obama's health-care plan isn't quite
progressive enough (Kathleen Parker, 8/19).
Fixing
Health Care: It's Time To Experiment Forbes
American
business is jeopardized by ever-escalating health care costs. In other
countries businesses don't carry those costs on their books. They're carried
by government, paid for out of taxes (Adam Hartung,
8/18).
You
Can't Blame Obama For American Stubbornness The Hartford Courant
I
think the president is simply too decent. Washington is not a nice town, and the
American public is intolerant and too many know little more than what they
are told by Fox News and by talk radio (William Pfaff,
8/18).
National
Review on Health Care: Let the Poor Eat Cake.
If
you're poor, sick, and can't afford good - or even adequate - health care,
it's your own fault for being poor, and your own problem. That's the clear
message of an editorial
that appeared on the National Review's website yesterday (scienceblogs.com,
8/18).
[BACK TO TOP]
