The authors assume that costs can no longer be contained in the United States health care system and that the present system cannot be sustained beyond the near future. Three of the authors are affiliated with an applied economic research and consulting firm, and the fourth is president of the Healthcare Financial Management Association. They are trained in business and city planning. The bibliography lists articles from such journals as Hospitals, Business & Health, Business Insurance, and Medical Economics.

The book is directed to members of hospital governing boards and other hospital administrators, but it will be of interest to students of health policy. Part I highlights tensions between what the authors call the worlds of doctors and hospital administrators struggling to survive, on the one hand, and health care planners worried about spiraling costs on the other. Part II contains five chapters that suggest reasons for growing costs and that criticize cost shifting as a remedy.

In Part III the authors evaluate alternative health care systems by presenting four future scenarios: incremental change, universal access, consumer choice model, and single payer system. In these chapters they also approach the fundamental purpose of the book—to “help physicians, hospitals, and health plans take the next steps to position themselves for the future.” While not highly analytical, the book is a readable and thoughtful supplement to more abstract critiques of the impact of today's health care system on distributive justice.

The classical economics perspective is that public policy should be used to allow, not hinder, economic freedom. In some cases it may be possible for government to gently nudge individuals to change their behavior without hindering freedom. One example is a change from the default on pension program enrollment forms from “not contribute” to “contribute.” This is generally viewed as a good nudge that gets people to do what the majority of people view as generally the correct behavior. However, a choice to contribute to a pension fund is not always in the individual’s best interest — thus, it is a nudge, not a mandate. To maintain personal liberty, individuals should be fully informed about the consequences of their choice and the motives of the political authority. Saving for retirement is a complex issue, and pension contribution decisions are often made with little foresight or information. Pension contribution nudges may not always be freedom preserving because of complexity and unintended consequences. The benefits, risks, and limitations of default contribution pension nudges are discussed.

This article uses a behavioral genetics approach to study gender differences in expressed political interest, applying the enriched environment hypothesis to gendered political socialization. As girls are less stimulated to develop an interest in politics than boys, we theorize that these differences in the socialization environment reduce the expression of girls’ genetic predispositions compared to boys’, leading to a gender gap in the heritability of this trait. Analyses using data on German twins (11–25 years) demonstrate relevant differences by gender and age in heritability estimates. While differences in political interest between boys are largely explained by genes, this is less the case for girls, as they have considerably higher shared environment estimates. Our results imply that gender differences in expressed political interest are sustained by both genetic variation and environmental influences (such as socialization), as well as the interaction between the two.

Scholars and journalists connect pandemics to a rise in support for radical political movements. In this study, we draw on this insight to investigate the relationship between the 1918–1919 Spanish influenza pandemic and political extremism—here, the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan—in the United States. Specifically, we ask whether U.S. states and cities with higher death rates from the Spanish flu also had stronger Ku Klux Klan organizations in the early 1920s. Our results do not provide evidence of such a connection; in fact, the data suggest greater Klan membership where the pandemic was less severe. This provides initial evidence that pandemic severity, as measured by mortality, is not necessarily a cause of extremism in the United States; power devaluation as a result of social and cultural change, however, does appear to spur such mobilization.

With the support of a grant from the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, research is currently underway on a major effort to rethink the basic theoretical issue that inspired the emergence of sociobiology. That issue, in a nutshell, concerns the explanation for the origins and evolution of social life (human societies being only one example among many others).

While there have always been those in the American public who mistrust science and scientists’ views of the world, they have tended to be a minority of the larger public. Recent COVID-19 related events indicate that could be changing for some key groups. What might explain the present state of mistrust of science within an important component of the American public? In this study, we delve deeply into this question and examine what citizens today believe about science and technology and why, focusing on core theories of trust, risk concern, and political values and on the important role of science optimism and pessimism orientations. Using national public survey data, we examine the correlates of science optimism and pessimism and test the efficacy of this construct as drivers of biotechnology policy. We find that science optimism and pessimism are empirically useful constructs and that they are important predictors of biotechnology policy choices.