This paper is inspired by the observation that the social norm approach (SNA) to socially desirable behaviour changethat is, telling people about what lots of other people doretains something of a Cinderella role among social marketing practitioners and academics. Thus, the objective of this paper is to bring the social norm approach to the attention of a widerand specifically, marketing and social marketingaudience, in the hope that the practice, study and critical analysis of the approach can be widened and deepened. We begin this task by tracing the background of the social norm approach to its origins in psychology and social psychology and by discussing a number of typical social norm campaigns. Thereafter, we review four key characteristics of successful social norm campaigns. In our discussion, we return to a more theoretical discussion of how the social norm approach works, and we pose a number of questions that emerge from the paper.

We focus on the role that community plays in the continuum of disaster preparedness, response and recovery, and we explore where community fits in conceptual frameworks concerning disaster decision-making. We offer an overview of models developed in the literature as well as insights drawn from research related to Hurricane Katrina. Each model illustrates some aspect of the spectrum of disaster preparedness and recovery, beginning with risk perception and vulnerability assessments, and proceeding to notions of resiliency and capacity building. Concepts like social resilience are related to theories of ''social capital,'' which stress the importance of social networks, reciprocity, and interpersonal trust. These allow individuals and groups to accomplish greater things than they could by their isolated efforts. We trace two contrasting notions of community to Tocqueville. On the one hand, community is simply an aggregation of individual persons, that is, a population. As individuals, they have only limited capacity to act effectively or make decisions for themselves, and they are strongly subject to administrative decisions that authorities impose on them. On the other hand, community is an autonomous actor, with its own interests, preferences, resources, and capabilities. This definition of community has also been embraced by community-based participatory researchers and has been thought to offer an approach that is more active and advocacy oriented. We conclude with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of community in disaster response and in disaster research.

The Affordable Care Act supports the growth of accountable care organizations (ACOs) as a potentially powerful model for health care delivery and payment. The model focuses on primary care. However, surgeons and other specialists have a large role to play in caring for ACOs' patients. No studies have yet investigated the role of surgical care in the ACO model. Using case studies and a survey, we examined the early experience of fifty-nine Medicare-approved ACOs in providing surgical care. We found that ACOs have so far devoted little attention to surgical care. Instead, they have emphasized coordinating care for patients with chronic conditions and reducing unnecessary hospital readmissions and ED visits. In the years to come, ACOs will likely focus more on surgical care. Some ACOs have the ability to affect surgical practice patterns through referral pressures, but local market conditions may limit ACOs' abilities to alter surgeons' behavior. Policy makers, ACO administrators, and surgeons need to be aware of these trends because they have the potential to affect the surgical care provided to ACO patients as well as the success of ACOs themselves.A ccountable care organizations (ACOs) are a new and potentially powerful payment model authorized by the Affordable Care Act. In ACOs approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), groups of physicians, together with other possible partners such as hospitals, take responsibility for the cost and quality of care for a set of Medicare patients and share in the savings if total costs are reduced below the benchmarked, expected costs. ACOs are designed to provide incentives for cost savings without limiting patient choice or compromising the quality of care.CMS approved the first fifty-nine Medicare ACOs in 2012. The agency is overseeing two different ACO models under its Medicare Shared Savings Program and the Pioneer ACO program. The programs differ primarily in terms of how much risk the ACOs in them assume.1 An Advance Payment Model that is part of the Shared Savings Program offers capital assistance to ACOs without inpatient facilities and with annual revenues of less than $50 million and to rural ACOs with critical-access hospitals, low-volume hospitals, or both and with annual revenues of less than $80 million.2 Many ACO-like arrangements have appeared in the private sector as well.Patients are attributed to an ACO if they obtain a plurality of their care from a primary care physician in the ACO. Medicare tracks the performance of individual ACOs against cost and quality benchmarks for the beneficiaries attributed to them.

The U.S. health care system too often falls short in delivering effective primary care, especially for patients with chronic conditions. One potential solution is the patient-centered medical home, a model that has shown success in individual demonstrations. Evidence from seven of the largest medical home pilots shows that four factors are essential: dedicated care managers; expanded access; performance management tools; and effective incentive payments. Federal policy, including implementation of health insurance reform legislation, should consider how to include these core elements and offer guidance and incentives for executing them effectively.

Peginterferon alpha-2a in combination with ribavirin with duration of therapy based on genotype, is cost-effective compared with conventional interferon alpha-2b in combination with ribavirin when given to treatment-naïve adults with CHC.

Our model suggests that peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin is cost effective compared with conventional interferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin for treatment of naive adults with CHC, regardless of HCV genotype, under a wide range of assumptions regarding treatment effectiveness and costs.

Our analysis suggests that 48-week treatment with peginterferon alpha-2a compared to 48-week treatment with lamivudine in HBeAg-positive patients offers life expectancy and quality of life benefits at a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio.

Eradication of HCV with peginterferon alpha-2a (40 kDa) plus ribavirin is associated with better quality of life and less fatigue in normal ALT patients. These patient benefits, coupled with the high probability of eradicating HCV, should be considered in making decisions about treating this population.