Suchergebnisse

Gospel Truth -- CONTENTS -- FIGURES AND TABLES -- Figures -- Tables -- PREFACE -- ABBREVIATIONS -- 1. INTRODUCTION: NEW ATHEISM AND GOSPEL TRUTH -- Rise of 'New' Atheism -- Influence of 'New' Atheism -- Their strategy -- Scientists who are Christian -- Atheists and gospel truth -- History, the Gospels and God -- 2. GOSPEL TRUTH AND THE BIG PICTURE -- The New Atheists' attack on gospel truth -- Dating the New Testament -- Mission literature -- New Testament history: from Bethlehem to Patmos -- A mission movement focused on Christ -- Conclusion -- 3. HOSTILE WITNESSES TO JESUS -- Josephus -- Tacitus -- Pliny the Younger -- Conclusion -- 4. THE IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF JESUS -- Incidental evidence from two early letters -- Galatians -- 1 Corinthians -- A catechism -- Words of knowledge -- Conclusion -- 5. GOSPEL TRUTH AND WORLD HISTORY -- The historical setting of Matthew, Mark and John -- Linkages in Luke-Acts -- The problem passages -- The main problem passage: Luke 2:2 -- The second problem passage: Acts 5:35-39 -- Problems in perspective -- Events and people contemporary with Luke -- The trivia of Acts -- The verdicts of ancient historians on Luke -- 6. ARCHAEOLOGY AND ARTEFACTS -- Jesus in Galilee -- Jesus in Samaria -- Jesus in the far north -- Jesus in Jerusalem -- The early church in Jerusalem -- Caesarea Maritima -- Cyprus and Antioch in Pisidia -- Other cities of Paul and John -- Paul's final visit to Jerusalem -- Conclusion -- 7. GOSPEL TRUTH AND CONTRADICTIONS -- Reality check -- 'Contradictions' from silence: Mark and John -- 'Contradictions' from silence: Josephus and Philo -- The global agreement of Mark and John -- 'Contradictions' of fact: Mark and John -- The clearing of the temple -- The Last Supper -- Mark and John -- Contradictions: between historians -- Gospels and historical integrity -- Gospels as historically reliable biographies

In the absence of billing data, alternative methods are used to estimate the cost of hospital stays, outpatient visits, and treatment innovations in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The choice of method represents a trade-off between accuracy and research cost. The direct measurement method gathers information on staff activities, supplies, equipment, space, and workload. Since it is expensive, direct measurement should be reserved for finding short-run costs, evaluating provider efficiency, or determining the cost of treatments that are innovative or unique to VA. The pseudo-bill method combines utilization data with a non-VA reimbursement schedule. The cost regression method estimates the cost of VA hospital stays by applying the relationship between cost and characteristics of non-VA hospitalizations. The Health Economics Resource Center uses pseudo-bill and cost regression methods to create an encounter-level database of VA costs. Researchers are also beginning to use the VA activity-based cost allocation system.

Cost identification is fundamental to many economic analyses of health care. Health care costs are often derived from administrative databases. Unit costs may also be obtained from published studies. When these sources will not suffice (e.g., in evaluating interventions or programs), data may be gathered directly through observation and surveys. This article describes how to use direct measurement to estimate the cost of an intervention. The authors review the elements of cost determination, including study perspective, the range of elements to measure, and short-run versus long-run costs. They then discuss the advantages and drawbacks of alternative direct measurement methods such as time-and-motion studies, activity logs, and surveys of patients and managers. A parsimonious data collection effort is desirable, although study hypotheses and perspective should guide the endeavor. Special reference is made to data sources within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.

We examined final stays of elderly patients (65 or more years of age) who died in 111 VA nursing homes in fiscal year 2000 (N = 4,897) to evaluate determinants of the cost of final nursing home stays. We analyzed cost and its two main components (length of stay and intensity of care) by primary disease, age, race or ethnicity, gender, and benefit-eligibility type. We found that disease rather than age was the dominant factor influencing the cost of final nursing home stays. After controlling for six common diagnoses, age was not associated with cost. Marital status and race or ethnicity were also significant predictors but accounted for less variation than illnesses. Incorporating illness into models that predict future demand for nursing home use provides greater precision than using age alone, especially as diseases and their treatments change through time.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) maintains discharge abstracts, but these do not include cost information. This article describes the methods the authors used to estimate the costs of VA medical-surgical hospitalizations in fiscal years 1998 to 2000. They estimated a cost regression with 1996 Medicare data restricted to veterans receiving VA care in an earlier year. The regression accounted for approximately 74 percent of the variance in cost-adjusted charges, and it proved to be robust to outliers and the year of input data. The beta coefficients from the cost regression were used to impute costs of VA medical-surgical hospital discharges. The estimated aggregate costs were reconciled with VA budget allocations. In addition to the direct medical costs, their cost estimates include indirect costs and physician services; both of these were allocated in proportion to direct costs. They discuss the method's limitations and application in other health care systems.

This article describes the development of a database for the cost of inpatient rehabilitation, mental health, and long-term care stays in the Department of Veterans Affairs from fiscal year 1998 forward. Using "bedsection," which is analogous to a hospital ward, the authors categorize inpatient services into nine categories: rehabilitation, blind rehabilitation, spinal cord injury, psychiatry, substance abuse, intermediate medicine, domiciliary, psychosocial residential rehabilitation, and nursing home. For each of the nine categories, they estimated a national and a local (i.e., medical center) average per diem cost. The nursing home average per diem costs were adjusted for case mix using patient assessment information. Encounter-level costs were then calculated by multiplying the aver-age per diem cost by the number of days of stay in the fiscal year. The national cost estimates are more reliable than the local cost estimates.

This article reports how we matched Common Procedure Terminology (CPT)codes with Medicare payment rates and aggregate Veterans Affairs (VA)budget data to estimate the costs of every VA ambulatory encounter. Converting CPT codes to encounter-level costs was more complex than a simple match of Medicare reimbursements to CPT codes. About 40 percent of the CPT codes used in VA, representing about 20 percent of procedures, did not have a Medicare payment rate and required other cost estimates. Reconciling aggregated estimated costs to the VA budget allocations for outpatient care produced final VA cost estimates that were lower than projected Medicare reimbursements. The methods used to estimate costs for encounters could be replicated for other settings. They are potentially useful for any system that does not generate billing data, when CPT codes are simpler to collect than billing data, or when there is a need to standardize cost estimates across data sources.

This Handbook aims to provide practical guidance on good treaty practice. It presents a range of examples from the practice of several States and international organisations and explains the actions that need to be taken to create a new treaty, bring it into force, operate it, amend it and wind it up, on both the international and the domestic plane. It also explores what constitutes good treaty practice, and develops generic principles or criteria against which to evaluate these examples. It provides a useful analytical tool to enable each government and international organisation to identify and develop the best treaty practice for their circumstances, recognising that one size does not necessarily fit all. It will be of interest to those working with treaties and treaty procedures in governments, international organisations and legal practice, as well as legal academics and students wishing to gain insight into the realities of treaty practice.

Chronic conditions are among the most common causes of death and disability in the United States. Patients with such conditions receive disproportionate amounts of health care services and therefore cost more per capita than the average patient. This study assesses the prevalence among the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care users and VA expenditures (costs) of 29 common chronic conditions. The authors used regression to identify the marginal impact of these conditions on total, inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy costs. Excluding costs of contracted medical services at non-VA facilities, total VA health care expenditures in fiscal year 1999 (FY1999) were $14.3 billion. Among the 3.4 million VA patients in FY1999, 72 percent had 1 or more of the 29 chronic conditions, and these patients accounted for 96 percent of the total costs ($13.7 billion). In addition, 35 percent (1.2 million) of VA health care users had 3 or more of the 29 chronic conditions. These individuals accounted for 73 percent of the total cost. Overall, VA health care users have more chronic diseases than the general population.

BACKGROUND: Veterans with significant chronic pain from musculoskeletal disorders are at risk of substance misuse. Veterans whose condition is the result of military service may be eligible for a disability pension. Department of Veterans Affairs compensation examinations, which determine the degree of disability and whether it was connected to military service, represent an opportunity to engage Veterans in pain management and substance use treatments. A multisite randomized clinical trial is testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment for Pain Management (SBIRT-PM) for Veterans seeking compensation for musculoskeletal disorders. This telephone-based intervention is delivered through a hub-and-spoke configuration. DESIGN: This study is a two-arm, parallel-group, 36-week, multisite randomized controlled single-blind trial. It will randomize 1,100 Veterans experiencing pain and seeking service-connection for musculoskeletal disorders to either SBIRT-PM or usual care across eight New England VA medical centers. The study balances pragmatic with explanatory methodological features. Primary outcomes are pain severity and number of substances misused. Nonpharmacological pain management and substance use services utilization are tracked in the trial. SUMMARY: Early trial enrollment targets were met across sites. SBIRT-PM could help Veterans, at the time of their compensation claims, use multimodal pain treatments and reduce existing substance misuse. Strategies to address COVID-19 pandemic impacts on the SBIRT-PM protocol have been developed to maintain its pragmatic and exploratory integrity.

BACKGROUND: Veterans with significant chronic pain from musculoskeletal disorders are at risk of substance misuse. Veterans whose condition is the result of military service may be eligible for a disability pension. Department of Veterans Affairs compensation examinations, which determine the degree of disability and whether it was connected to military service, represent an opportunity to engage Veterans in pain management and substance use treatments. A multisite randomized clinical trial is testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment for Pain Management (SBIRT-PM) for Veterans seeking compensation for musculoskeletal disorders. This telephone-based intervention is delivered through a hub-and-spoke configuration. DESIGN: This study is a two-arm, parallel-group, 36-week, multisite randomized controlled single-blind trial. It will randomize 1,100 Veterans experiencing pain and seeking service-connection for musculoskeletal disorders to either SBIRT-PM or usual care across eight New England VA medical centers. The study balances pragmatic with explanatory methodological features. Primary outcomes are pain severity and number of substances misused. Nonpharmacological pain management and substance use services utilization are tracked in the trial. SUMMARY: Early trial enrollment targets were met across sites. SBIRT-PM could help Veterans, at the time of their compensation claims, use multimodal pain treatments and reduce existing substance misuse. Strategies to address COVID-19 pandemic impacts on the SBIRT-PM protocol have been developed to maintain its pragmatic and exploratory integrity.