An entry from the Cambridge Structural Database, the world’s repository for small molecule crystal structures. The entry contains experimental data from a crystal diffraction study. The deposited dataset for this entry is freely available from the CCDC and typically includes 3D coordinates, cell parameters, space group, experimental conditions and quality measures.
Ideas and Opinions6 December 2016The Most Critical Health Care Issues for the Next President to AddressStephen M. Shortell, PhD, MPH, MBA and Diane Rittenhouse, MD, MPHStephen M. Shortell, PhD, MPH, MBAFrom University of California, Berkeley, and University of California, San Francisco, California. and Diane Rittenhouse, MD, MPHFrom University of California, Berkeley, and University of California, San Francisco, California.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2471 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail The most important action the next president can take to advance health and health care in the United States is to articulate an overarching vision and set of core principles to guide the nation toward better health. The vision should be to ensure that all people living in the United States have the opportunity to live healthy, productive lives. This vision would recognize the decades of research revealing that the social determinants of health—our physical and social environments and health behaviors—are the major determinants of our health (1).Five core principles that the president could highlight are as follows. First, ...References1. McGinnis JM, Williams-Russo P, Knickman JR. The case for more active policy attention to health promotion. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002;21:78-93. [PMID: 11900188] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Bradley EH, Taylor LA. The American Health Care Paradox: Why Spending More Is Getting Us Less. New York: PublicAffairs; 2013. Google Scholar3. Lavizzo-Mourey R. Halfway there? Health reform starts now. JAMA. 2016;315:1335-6. [PMID: 26940727] doi:10.1001/jama.2016.1732 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Shortell SM. Bridging the divide between health and health care. JAMA. 2013;309:1121-2. [PMID: 23512058] doi:10.1001/jama.2013.887 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Curtis CJ, Clapp J, Niederman SA, Ng SW, Angell SY. US food industry progress during the National Salt Reduction Initiative: 2009–2014. Am J Public Health. 2016;106:1815-9. [PMID: 27552265] doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303397 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Partnership for a Healthier America. 2015 Annual Progress Report. Washington, DC: Partnership for a Healthier America; 2016. Google Scholar7. Oberlander J. From Obamacare to Hillarycare—Democrats' health care reform agenda. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1309-1311. [PMID: 27627459] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Jost TS, Pollack H. Key Proposals to Strengthen the Affordable Care Act. New York: The Century Foundation; 23 November 2015. Google Scholar9. Clinton H. My vision for universal, quality, affordable health care. N Engl J Med. 2016. [PMID: 27681881] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Kocot SL, White R. Medicare ACOs: incremental progress, but performance varies. Health Affairs Blog. 21 September 2016. Accessed at http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/09/21/medicare-acos-incremental-progress-but-performance-varies on 24 October 2016. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From University of California, Berkeley, and University of California, San Francisco, California.Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M16-2471.Corresponding Author: Stephen M. Shortell, PhD, MPH, MBA, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, 50 University Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720.Current Author Addresses: Dr. Shortell: School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, 50 University Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720.Dr. Rittenhouse: Department of Family Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 500 Parnassus Avenue, Room MU 308-E, San Francisco, CA 94143-0900.Author Contributions: Conception and design: S.M. Shortell, D. Rittenhouse.Drafting of the article: S.M. Shortell, D. Rittenhouse.Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: S.M. Shortell, D. Rittenhouse.Final approval of the article: S.M. Shortell, D. Rittenhouse.This article was published at www.annals.org on 1 November 2016. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byHealth Insurance and Blood Pressure Control 6 December 2016Volume 165, Issue 11Page: 816-817KeywordsFoodHealth careHealth care providersHealth insuranceMotivationPainPrevention, policy, and public healthPublic policyTaxesVision ePublished: 1 November 2016 Issue Published: 6 December 2016 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2016 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
As the Internet makes the transition from research testbed to commercial enterprise, the topic of pricing in computer networks has suddenly attracted great attention. Much of the discussion in the network design community and the popular press centers on the usage-based vs. flat pricing debate. The more academic literature has largely focused on devising optimal pricing policies; achieving optimal welfare requires charging marginal congestion costs for usage. In this paper we critique this optimality paradigm on three grounds: (1) marginal cost prices may not produce sufficient revenue to fully recover costs and so are perhaps of limited relevance, (2) congestion costs are inherently inaccessible to the network and so cannot reliably form the basis for pricing, and (3) there are other, more structural, goals besides optimality, and some of these goals are incompatible with the global uniformity required for optimal pricing schemes. For these reasons, we contend that the research agenda on pricing in computer network should shift away from the optimality paradigm and focus more on structural and architectural issues. Such issues include allowing local control of pricing policies, fostering interconnection, handling multicast appropriately, and allowing receivers to pay for transmission. To illustrate our point, we describe how these goals might be accomplished in the context of a different pricing paradigm: edge pricing. In addition, we argue that in the context of this edge pricing paradigm, usage-based pricing and flat pricing are not radically different but instead both reside along the single continuum of usage-constraining pricing policies.
A localization technique using reliable, highly accurate, robust, inexpensive light beam sensors designed for mechanical assembly and manufacturing is presented. The technique involves passing polyhedral objects through a set of crossed beams and storing the positions when any beam is broken or reconnects. The geometrical constraints simplify the correspondence problem, so that it is solvable in linear time or can be solved using a precomputed hash table. The global minimum least-squared error pose is computed exactly using methods from algebra and numerical analysis. The limitations of this technique result from the beam sensor's limitations.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
Abstract ChemInform is a weekly Abstracting Service, delivering concise information at a glance that was extracted from about 200 leading journals. To access a ChemInform Abstract, please click on HTML or PDF.