Eric Volant , E jeu des affranchis: A seductive classroom presence, he attracted Germany's brightest young intellects during the s. Regulators should not passively rely on complaints to ensure insurer compliance. Zvi Tauber , Befreiung und das "Absurde": Fixing the family glitch would come at some cost, but also would bring significant benefits for those who lack access to coverage because of it. Preventive Services Task Force based on rigorous clinical trials.
The elderly and many people with disabilities, for example, qualify for Medicare, while certain categories of the poor have long qualified for Medicaid and then CHIP. These various forms of health care and coverage are financed through multiple funding streams that are often poorly coordinated.
Care and coverage are also regulated by different federal entities and by fifty state governments, whose priorities, political perspectives, administrative structures, and regulatory requirements are often quite different.
Although the ACA included reforms aimed at virtually all of the various pieces of our patchwork of coverage, it left most pre-existing programs largely intact. Most Americans continue to get health coverage as they always have, largely unaffected by the ACA. The most dramatic effect of the ACA has been to help people who were not previously covered.
Before , most working-age adults under age 65 who were not offered health insurance through employment were not eligible for any government assistance or tax subsidies to help them purchase health coverage. Many people were unable to afford health insurance unassisted. The ACA took two approaches to extending coverage. First, it expanded Medicaid eligibility to cover individuals and families with incomes below percent of the federal poverty level FPL who were not otherwise covered.
Second, it offered tax credits on a sliding scale to individuals and families with incomes between and percent of the FPL—who were not otherwise offered coverage in government programs or affordable and adequate employer-based coverage—to help them purchase health insurance through state health insurance marketplaces.
The Medicaid expansion has not reached all Americans. Currently more than three million adults in twenty states are uncovered because of that decision. Furthermore, while the tax subsidy approach can claim many successes, it remains cumbersome and it has not been wholly effective. More than half of the 9 million moderate-income Americans currently enrolled through the ACA marketplaces were uninsured before they obtained such coverage.
Over 5 million of the uninsured remain uncovered because Congress deliberately excluded individuals not lawfully present in the United States from federal assistance. We shall describe strategies for improving Medicaid coverage later in this report. The rest of this section will focus on gaps in and limitations of the tax subsidy approach to making coverage affordable for moderate-income Americans. At the time the ACA was enacted, political realities dictated that assistance for moderate-income Americans must be provided through tax credits rather than through a new entitlement program.
Those with incomes below percent of the federal poverty level FPL are eligible for at least some subsidies on the state marketplaces. Yet the actual tax credits are based on retrospectively reported income as determined at tax-filing time. Predicting household finances is especially challenging for individuals with fluctuating incomes. It is also difficult because household income includes not only the income of the applicant, but also the incomes of other household members.
Even predicting household composition for an entire year may be challenging, as enrollees marry, divorce, have children, or die. In relying on tax credits to expand coverage, the ACA follows a familiar strategy.
Although America has maintained large health care entitlement programs for the elderly and poor, it has long relied—with bipartisan support—on the tax system to subsidize health coverage for the majority of Americans, who receive employer-sponsored coverage.
The IRS has demonstrated impressive administrative capacity to manage many aspects of this process, and has long operated programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit EITC , which rank among the most successful and popular efforts to assist low-income Americans.
The formulas used for calculating premium tax credits under the ACA also adjust payments to take account of premium variations in different insurance markets, household size, and the age of household members. Tax credits available under the ACA are often insufficiently generous to provide affordable coverage. Gaps in the current law also leave coverage unaffordable for many households. Were it politically possible, we would abandon the tax system as the mechanism of covering low-income Americans and extend Medicaid or Medicare or create a new program to do so.
Given the daunting political obstacles to such approaches, we offer instead recommendations for improving the current system. Under the ACA, workers are ineligible for marketplace tax credits if their employer offers them health insurance coverage that is deemed to be adequate and affordable. The family glitch arises because of the way in which affordability is actually defined. These percentages will be higher for and subsequent years.
This rule is fair for single workers, but not for many workers with families. Workers who need family coverage may be cut off from access to marketplace tax credits, even when the much higher cost of family coverage greatly exceeds 9.
CHIP offers other advantages over marketplace plans, particularly for children experiencing significant health needs. However, half the states set the CHIP eligibility level at percent of poverty or less, leaving many families excluded from marketplace coverage by the family glitch also unable to get CHIP coverage for their children.
Although the family glitch is often described as a legislative drafting error, it results from questionable statutory interpretation by the IRS see Box 2. Whether this problem is addressed by Congress or administratively, and whether relief is extended to all individuals in affected families or just to dependents, it is important to provide working families the financial help they need to gain practical access to affordable health insurance.
RAND Corporation researchers recently examined two alternatives for fixing the family glitch. The first approach would allow all family members, including employed family members with access to affordable individual coverage, to be eligible for the APTC if employer family coverage were unaffordable; the second approach would give only dependents access to APTC subsidies.
Blumberg and John Holahan of the Urban Institute performed similar analyses , and obtained consistent estimates. The RAND team estimates that granting eligibility to all family members would allow 4.
The second approach would allow 2. The proportion of affected working families spending more than 10 percent of their income on health care in would decrease from 87 percent under current rules to 47 percent under the first option or 58 percent under the second. Fixing the family glitch would come at some cost, but also would bring significant benefits for those who lack access to coverage because of it.
It should be the place to start for expanding ACA coverage for families with incomes above the Medicaid eligibility level. Taxpayers earning less than percent of FPL often experience variable work hours. Their incomes may depend upon the generosity of tip income, demand for a product or service, even, in many jobs, on the weather. A taxpayer or household member may gain or lose a job over the year, move from part-time to full-time status, or visa-versa.
Moreover, tax credits are based on household size and composition. But household composition and size change, as babies are born, couples marry or divorce, people die, or older children become independent.
Tax year statistics on the functioning of the tax credit program reflected these uncertainties. In , for only 10 percent of taxpayers eligible for the APTC did the credits paid out in advance equal the credits for which taxpayers were in fact determined to be eligible when they filed their taxes.
Forty percent received additional tax credit amounts when they filed their taxes because they received too little APTC given their final income. Most about 65 percent of those who received excess APTC did not have to make a specific additional payment to the IRS because the excess amount was recovered from a tax refund to which they otherwise have been entitled. See Figures 4 and 5. As of June , only 3. One simple step to smooth the functioning of the APTC and avoid burdensome reconciliations would be to improve the accuracy of the credits by providing coverage applicants with a clearer and more comprehensive explanation of how their APTC was calculated.
Currently, applicants receive a statement when they become eligible that tells them the amount of their APTC and the amount of income on which APTC were based. Eligibility may be calculated based on the income reported by the applicant or on income drawn from prior tax records or other sources. A more transparent explanation could explain how the income was computed, including what income was considered in calculating the amount.
The current notice informs the taxpayer that changes in income, available coverage alternatives, or household composition must be reported and that failure to do so may result in the taxpayer having to pay back overpayments, but the notice could include examples of how changes in household income or size might affect the amount the taxpayer would have to pay back.
Taxpayers could also be sent quarterly notices including the income projections on which their tax credits are calculated and advised to report any changes in income to avoid over- or under-payment of their APTC. Monthly premium statements from insurers could also remind enrollees of their obligation to keep enrollment information current. The issuance of the A form that enrollees are sent to assist with tax reconciliation could be moved up to mid-January to ensure that taxpayers received early notice of their need to file taxes and the amount of APTC on which their taxes would be calculated.
The reconciliation process could also be adjusted to ease the burden of reconciliation. Allowing some variance from projected to actual income at the time of reconciliation could reduce administrative complexity and taxpayer burden. Taxpayers could be excused from having to pay back tax credits if their final household income were within a certain percentage perhaps 10 percent of their projected income, as long as the taxpayer did not intentionally underreport income.
Taxpayers who were determined to have received less in APTC than they were entitled by the same percentage of variation would not receive an additional payment unless they had intentionally foregone advance payment of the full tax credit.
Taxpayers should also have the option of the IRS reconciling their APTC and actual premium tax credits rather than having to do it themselves. If they fail to do so, however, the IRS could simply perform the reconciliation calculation for them, assuming the information on form A to be correct.
Taxpayers could be notified on the form A that the IRS will perform the reconciliation calculation for them if they fail to file a form No one should lose access to premium tax credits simply because they fail to file this form. Although Medicaid, tax credits, and cost-sharing reduction payments help make insurance affordable, health insurance is still so costly for many moderate- and middle-income Americans that they refuse coverage.
Current tax credits require individuals and families with incomes below percent of FPL to pay too much before tax credits take over. One consequence is that many low-income workers are declining subsidized employer-based and marketplace-based coverage. Reducing or eliminating premiums for Medicaid-ineligible families below percent of the FPL would greatly improve take-up among those in greatest need. Affordability is also a problem among those with higher incomes. More than 15 million uninsured Americans have incomes in excess of percent of FPL, while 5.
Households with incomes above percent of FPL are not entitled to financial assistance, and few have sought coverage through the marketplaces.
The full schedule of ACA subsidies could potentially particularly in combination with income limits of other federal and state anti-poverty programs create adverse work incentives. They also impose significant burdens on middle-income Americans who lack access to employer-sponsored coverage. Blumberg and Holahan also propose allowing individuals with incomes above percent of FPL to gain access to tax credits, as long as the premiums they would have to pay for the second-lowest-cost gold plan cost more than 8.
Thus assistance would not be linked only to the amount of income but also to the cost of coverage. Adoption of this proposal would improve access to affordable health insurance for moderate- to middle-income households.
Yet its cost would not be open ended, as the number of households that would be eligible for coverage would rapidly diminish as income increased. Middle-income taxpayers without access to employer coverage would at least be entitled to a fixed-dollar tax credits even if their incomes were too high to qualify for income-based credits.
From both a substantive and a political perspective, such proposals merit consideration. Fixed-dollar tax credits have long been proposed as an alternative to the current employer-sponsored insurance tax exclusion.
These proposals have come primarily from conservative or libertarian advocacy groups, but have also been put forward by many economists across the political spectrum. Under one proposed alternative, taxpayers who do not have employer-sponsored coverage could choose between income-based tax credits, which could continue to phase out at percent of FPL based on the cost of coverage, as described above, and fixed-dollar tax credits, which could be more generous than income-based tax credits at the percent of poverty level.
The amount of the credits should be set high enough to have a significant effect on affordability, but would still leave most of the responsibility for the cost of insurance with enrollees at higher income levels.
Credits should be age-adjusted to ensure that they reflect age-related premium differences. Such credits should be limited to individuals who are not covered through their work, since employer-sponsored coverage is already tax subsidized. However, individuals offered coverage through their work should be able to decline that coverage and purchase coverage through the marketplace and claim tax credits if this alternative is more affordable.
This program structure may lead some employers to stop offering coverage, as firms and workers compare the value of the fixed credit to the value of the tax exclusion. As long as marketplaces offer good coverage, we regard this as an acceptable policy tradeoff. Fixed-dollar tax credits for higher-income individuals would not require reconciliation based on actual income or to repayment to the Treasury, as long as total household income remained below the maximum eligibility level.
Fixed dollar tax credits would thus be more predictable and simpler than income-based tax credits. It may not even be necessary to pay them in advance, as taxpayers could reduce withholding or estimated tax payments in anticipation of the credits and use the savings to help pay for health insurance.
A fixed-dollar tax credit such as that proposed here would come at some cost. Since it would only be available to individuals who do not enroll in employer coverage and who did not qualify for income-based credits, it would be much less costly than a universal tax credit. One attractive pathway to finance this system would be to cap the employer-sponsored coverage tax exclusion, a proposal that has wide support in the policy research community. Further research is needed to determine the amount of tax credits, their total cost, and how they would be financed.
The ACA has reduced the financial burdens associated with injury and illness, and has made health care more affordable for millions of Americans. Although ACA provides valuable limits on total out-of-pocket spending, it has not restrained the long-term trend toward higher deductibles and copayments in employer-sponsored coverage.
Higher cost-sharing indisputably reduces the volume of care received by consumers, and thus overall expenditures. Yet there is considerable and growing evidence that such cost-sharing does so indiscriminately, reducing consumption of high-value as well as low-value care. Covered individuals increasingly seek care from narrow provider networks and find medications listed on limited or tiered formularies. While narrower networks can provide high-quality, cost-effective care, too-narrow networks or formularies can pose significant barriers to consumers getting the care they need.
In-network providers are not always easily identified, and out-of-network providers are not easily avoided. People served by out-of-network providers may therefore face large and unexpected bills.
In sum, the ACA has expanded coverage, but too many Americans lack access to affordable and transparently priced health care. This section addresses problems raised by excessive cost-sharing and networks and formularies that are too restrictive. Although the ACA implements stop-loss provisions that reduce the risk of catastrophic financial loss, out-of-pocket medical costs continue to be a major concern for many Americans.
The ACA is sometimes wrongly blamed for increasing consumer out-of-pocket spending, so far the new law appears to have neither aggravated nor slowed the long-term trend toward higher deductibles and copayments in private coverage see Figure 8.
High cost-sharing is having a real impact on American families. A recent Commonwealth Fund study finds that half of underinsured adults report being contacted by collection agencies or having to change their way of life because of medical bills.
Being underinsured also has medical consequences—a quarter of those responding to the Commonwealth survey reported not going to the doctor for a medical problem, not filling a prescription, or skipping medical tests or treatments recommended by a physician for financial reasons.
The ACA has a confusing array of rules governing the adequacy of coverage that can, in some circumstances, leave care essentially unaffordable. Large employers with more than fifty full-time equivalent employees are required to provide minimum essential coverage to their full-time employees or to pay a penalty for each full-time employee if any employee receives premium tax credits for non-group coverage through the marketplace.
As applied to employer coverage, the minimum essential coverage definition requires vanishingly little. Minimum value employer coverage is somewhat more comprehensive than minimum essential coverage. Minimum value employer plans must have an actuarial value of at least 60 percent that is, they must cover at least 60 percent of the costs of a standard self-insured-plan population and they must cover substantial hospitalization and physician services—but minimum value plans can still impose substantial cost-sharing on employees.
Individual and small group insurance must meet higher standards although it often in fact imposes higher cost-sharing than most large-employer plans. It must cover ten essential health benefits and provide coverage after cost-sharing set at one of four actuarial value levels—bronze 60 percent , silver 70 percent , gold 80 percent , and platinum 90 percent. Premium tax credits are keyed to the premium of the second lowest-cost silver plan in a market. Most marketplace enrollees who depend on premium tax credits choose to purchase bronze or silver plans.
Bronze, silver, and catastrophic plans bring high cost-sharing. But high cost-sharing can impose significant burdens, particularly those with modest incomes or costly health challenges. Lower-income families may face a choice between affordable coverage and affordable care. Other serious cost-sharing burdens remain. Insurers and group health plans can cover services from out-of-network providers but are not required to do so except for emergency services and often impose higher caps on out-of-network out-of-pocket expenditures.
Out-of-pocket caps also do not apply to services that do not qualify as essential health benefits. Although a standard silver plan is one that covers 70 percent of the actuarial value of covered services, the ACA also provides cost-sharing subsidies that boost the total value of a silver plan for marketplace enrollees with incomes below percent of the FPL.
Households with incomes above this threshold, particularly those who receive out-of-network care, are often responsible for far higher out-of-pocket payments, even if their household incomes are below percent of FPL and they therefore remain eligible for financial assistance with their monthly premiums. The ACA requires the federal government to reimburse health plans for the amounts they provide modest-income consumers in reducing cost-sharing. Litigation is now pending challenging the legality of this reimbursement in the absence of explicit congressional appropriation.
The ACA should be amended to make health care more affordable. Urban Institute researchers Linda Blumberg and John Holahan propose that the premium tax credits be set to cover the cost of 80 percent actuarial value gold plans rather than the 70 percent silver plans.
Health care could also be made more affordable by reducing out-of-pocket limits. As noted above, the ACA imposes an out-of-pocket limit on all forms of health coverage. The ACA provided, however, that these reductions in out-of-pocket limits should not increase the actuarial value of plans above the limits set for cost-sharing reduction payments.
Thus, while out-of-pocket limits are reduced by two-thirds for enrollees with incomes below percent of FPL, out-of-pocket limits are reduced by less than a third for individuals with incomes between and percent of FPL, and not at all for those with higher incomes. Significant cost-sharing relief could be afforded individuals with moderate incomes by effectuating the out-of-pocket limits imposed by the ACA without regard to actuarial value.
If the actuarial value of ACA benchmark plans were increased from 70 to 80 percent, as Blumberg and Holahan suggest, the out-of-pocket limit could be decreased across the board to the levels found in the original ACA, since insures could pay a larger share of total covered costs. Finally, the ACA employer responsibility regulations should be amended to improve coverage.
Minimum value coverage should include substantial coverage for pharmacy and diagnostic tests as well as hospitalization and physician services. Minimum essential coverage should require coverage of hospital, physician services, pharmacy, and diagnostic tests as well.
Employers who fail to provide these services should be subject to the employer mandate penalties. Employees who are not offered minimum value coverage as redefined should have access to marketplace coverage with premium tax credit support. As noted below, principles of value-based insurance design may prove helpful in defining the scope of coverage in these areas. Cost-sharing reduction payments are only available to individuals who purchase individual qualified health plans through the marketplaces and who are otherwise eligible for APTC assistance.
This leaves millions of individuals with coverage through their employment or through the individual market with incomes above percent of FPL exposed to levels of cost-sharing that may still make health care a significant economic burden. One way of increasing affordability for middle-income populations is through account-based programs such as health savings accounts HSAs , health reimbursement accounts, flexible spending plans, and Archer medical savings accounts.
These accounts permit tax subsidies for amounts set aside to cover medical costs, including cost-sharing imposed by health plans. HSAs are sometimes touted as an all-purpose solution to health policy problems.
In fact, HSAs provide one of the most heavily subsidized investment vehicles available and are used disproportionately by affluent taxpayers, who use them to maximize retirement savings rather than simply paying for health care, as money can be withdrawn from HSAs after age 65 for non-health care expenses without a penalty.
HSAs can, however, be of value to marketplace enrollees. While it would be preferable to increase APTC and cost-sharing reduction eligibility levels and generosity, if this is not politically possible, HSA investments can provide some relief for individuals with moderate incomes or individuals who underestimate their income and are faced with high APTC repayments at tax filing time.
Some legislative changes could make HSAs even more helpful for those who actually use them to cover health care costs.
First, the out-of-pocket limits under the ACA could be amended to align them with out-of-pocket maximums for HSA-linked high-deductible health plans. Although the limits were initially aligned, they increase under different inflation adjustment rules, making it possible that ACA compliant plans would not be HSA eligible.
These rules could be easily aligned. Modest direct federal contributions to HSAs for moderate-income Americans could also be considered. These could be paid as a refundable tax credit at the time of tax filing based on actual taxable income, avoiding the need for reconciliation. As with retirement accounts, modest subsidies could be implemented with a well-designed choice architecture that could overcome behavioral inertia to encourage greater savings.
Government or private plans could also assist consumers with the logistical practicalities of establishing such accounts. Consideration should also be given to allowing small employers to fund health reimbursement accounts HRAs that could be drawn upon by employees to purchase health insurance in the individual market. This is currently illegal under administration interpretations of the ACA and preexisting tax law. Provision would also have to be made to ensure that the offer of an HRA did not disqualify employees from receiving marketplace premium subsidies unless the HRA contribution made coverage genuinely affordable.
But with these protections, found in current legislative proposals HR , a program that allowed small employer contributions for coverage through HRAs could encourage some employers who would not otherwise offer traditional small group coverage to make coverage more affordable for their employees.
Even if the ACA is not amended to increase cost-sharing support, health insurers could make health care more affordable. Some marketplace plans currently offer some services—coverage of generic drugs for example—that are not subject to the deductible. In fact, in , 80 percent of marketplace silver plan enrollees selected a plan with a primary care visit covered before the deductible while 82 percent selected a plan with generic drugs covered below the deductible.
Such plan designs carry some danger of risk selection. If these plans impose lower cost-sharing on individuals with minimum medical demands, they must make up for it by imposing higher cost-sharing elsewhere, presumably on higher-cost individuals.
On the other hand, if offering some covered services to individuals with low medical needs attracts those individuals into the marketplace, this might have the effect of lowering the cost of coverage for all marketplace participants. As noted above, accumulating evidence confirms that greater patient cost-sharing leads to reduced utilization.
But there is little evidence that consumers respond to cost-sharing by effectively comparing prices for costly services, or by focusing on the highest-value care. Annual medical spending quickly dropped, with total firm-wide medical spending declining by more than 10 percent.
Brot-Goldberg and colleagues found little evidence that workers effectively distinguished wasteful from valuable care. Given a financially generous high-deductible health plan with an accompanying HSA, even this group of relatively high-income, highly educated workers markedly reduced its receipt of clinical preventive services and other valuable care. There was also little evidence that this relatively advantaged consumer group used available tools to identify cheaper services and providers, or even that consumers strategically responded to the actual economic incentives created by their insurance plan.
Researchers found especially concerning utilization declines among people with health problems, who may have foregone important forms of care. Almost half of the spending reduction also occurred among predictably sick individuals likely to exceed their annual deductibles, for whom the true marginal cost of specific services was often quite low.
This overall pattern of findings casts doubt on the power of calibrated consumer incentives to safely and effectively improve the cost-effectiveness of medical care. Value-based insurance design VBID attempts to balance the competing goals of greater economy and cost-effectiveness with greater financial protection and improved health. Consumers require the most generous coverage and most minimal cost-sharing for high-value services likely to improve health, with less generous cost-sharing for lower-value services such as name-brand drugs for which cheaper generic substitutes are readily available.
Preventive Services Task Force based on rigorous clinical trials. Equivalent bodies could develop an evidence-based list of secondary prevention and chronic disease management services that would similarly be covered without patient out-of-pocket cost or with minimal cost. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation recently announced an initiative to deploy VBID principles to align cost-sharing more carefully with high-value services in Medicare Advantage.
Beginning in January , these programs will test the utility of structuring patient cost-sharing and other health plan design elements to promote high-value clinical services in seven states. This effort provides a promising platform to design more innovative marketplace plans, which the federal and state marketplaces should encourage. Further steps should be taken to improve the adequacy of provider networks and formularies.
Consumers also need to be protected from surprise balance billing when they unintentionally use the services of out-of-network providers. This could be done by amendments to the ACA, but could be accomplished also by the administrative actions under existing authority and by state legislatures and insurance regulators.
Urey and Frieda soon became engaged. They were married at her father's house in Lawrence, Kansas , in At Johns Hopkins, Urey and Arthur Ruark wrote Atoms, Quanta and Molecules , one of the first English texts on quantum mechanics and its applications to atomic and molecular systems. In the s, William Giauque and Herrick L.
Johnston discovered the stable isotopes of oxygen. Isotopes were not well understood at the time; James Chadwick would not discover the neutron until Two systems were in use for classifying them, based on chemical and physical properties. The latter was determined using the mass spectrograph. Since it was known that the atomic weight of oxygen was almost exactly 16 times as heavy as hydrogen, Raymond Birge , and Donald Menzel hypothesized that hydrogen had more than one isotope as well.
Based upon the difference between the results of the two methods, they predicted that only one hydrogen atom in 4, was of the heavy isotope.
In , Urey set out to find it. Urey and George Murphy calculated from the Balmer series that the heavy isotope should have lines redshifted by 1. Urey had access to a foot 6.
Urey therefore decided to delay publishing their results until he had more conclusive evidence that it was heavy hydrogen. Urey and Murphy calculated from the Debye model that the heavy isotope would have a slightly higher boiling point than the light one.
By carefully warming liquid hydrogen, 5 litres of liquid hydrogen could be distilled to 1 millilitre, which would be enriched in the heavy isotope by to times. To obtain five litres of liquid hydrogen, they traveled to the cryogenics laboratory at the National Bureau of Standards in Washington, D. To their surprise, this showed no evidence of enrichment. On this sample, the Balmer lines for heavy hydrogen were seven times as intense. Working with Edward W. Washburn from the Bureau of Standards, Urey subsequently discovered the reason for the anomalous sample.
Brickwedde's hydrogen had been separated from water by electrolysis , resulting in depleted sample. Moreover, Francis William Aston now reported that his calculated value for the atomic weight of hydrogen was wrong, thereby invalidating Birge and Menzel's original reasoning.
The discovery of deuterium stood, however. Urey and Washburn attempted to use electrolysis to create pure heavy water. Their technique was sound, but they were beaten to it in by Lewis, who had the resources of the University of California at his disposal. They extended this to enriching compounds of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen.
These could be used as tracers in biochemistry , resulting in a whole new way of examining chemical reactions. Urey contributed a science article to The Scientific Monthly on Irving Langmuir , who invented atomic hydrogen welding in by utilizing to volts of electricity and tungsten filaments, and won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in surface chemistry.
He supported Atlanticist Clarence Streit 's proposal for a federal union of the world's major democracies , and the republican cause during the Spanish Civil War. He was an early opponent of German Nazism and assisted refugee scientists, including Enrico Fermi, by helping them find work in the United States, and to adjust to life in a new country.
Thus far, separation had involved only the light elements. In and , Urey published two papers on the separation of heavier isotopes in which he proposed centrifugal separation. This assumed great importance due to speculation by Niels Bohr that uranium was fissile. A third possibility was thermal diffusion. Pegram led a diplomatic mission to England to establish co-operation on development of the atomic bomb.
The British were optimistic about gaseous diffusion,  but it was clear that both gaseous and centrifugal methods faced formidable technical obstacles.
Urey became head of the wartime Substitute Alloy Materials Laboratories SAM Laboratories at Columbia, which was responsible for the heavy water and all the isotope enrichment processes except Ernest Lawrence 's electromagnetic process. Early reports on the centrifugal method indicated that it was not as efficient as predicted. Urey suggested that a more efficient but technically more complicated countercurrent system be used instead of the previous flow-through method.
By November , technical obstacles seemed formidable enough for the process to be abandoned. The gaseous diffusion process remained more encouraging, although it too had technical obstacles to overcome. As a backup, Urey championed thermal diffusion.
Worn out by the effort, Urey left the project in February , handing over his responsibilities to R. For a time, uranium was fed into the S50 liquid thermal diffusion plant , then the K gaseous, and finally the Y electromagnetic separation plant ; but soon after the war ended the thermal and electromagnetic separation plants were closed down, and separation was performed by K alone.
Along with its twin, K, constructed in , it became the principal isotope separation plant in the early post-war period. Cohen — was an American chemist that worked as a research assistant under the direction of Harold Urey. Cohen's greatest accomplishment was his work with Urey at Columbia , where he helped to perfect the enrichment techniques used in the Manhattan Project.
He was a major player in the development of the centrifuge isotope separation, which is now the most commonly used way of uranium enrichment. He became an advisor for Standard Oil and worked towards the possibility of the nuclear energy. After the war, Urey became professor of chemistry at the Institute for Nuclear Studies , and then became Ryerson professor of chemistry at the University of Chicago in However, applying the knowledge gained with hydrogen to oxygen, he realized that the fractionation between carbonate and water for oxygen and oxygen would decrease by a factor of 1.
The ratio of the isotopes could then be used to determine average temperatures, assuming that the measurement equipment was sufficiently sensitive. The team included his colleague Ralph Buchsbaum. Examination of a million-year-old belemnite then indicated the summer and winter temperatures that it had lived through over a period of four years. For this pioneering paleoclimatic research, Urey was awarded the Arthur L.
Urey actively campaigned against the May-Johnson bill because he feared that it would lead to military control of nuclear energy, but supported and fought for the McMahon bill that replaced it, and ultimately created the Atomic Energy Commission. Urey's commitment to the ideal of world government dated from before the war, but the possibility of nuclear war made it only more urgent in his mind.
He went on lecture tours against war, and became involved in Congressional debates regarding nuclear issues. In later life, Urey helped develop the field of cosmochemistry and is credited with coining the term.
His work on oxygen led him to develop theories about the abundance of the chemical elements on earth, and of their abundance and evolution in the stars. Urey summarized his work in The Planets: Their Origin and Development One of his Chicago graduate students, Stanley L.
Miller , showed in the Miller—Urey experiment that, if such a mixture be exposed to electric sparks and to water, it can interact to produce amino acids , commonly considered the building blocks of life. Urey spent a year as a visiting professor at Oxford University in England in and He was subsequently made a professor emeritus there from to In the late s and early s, space science became a topic of research in the wake of the launch of Sputnik I.
Urey helped persuade NASA to make unmanned probes to the moon a priority. When Apollo 11 returned moon rock samples from the moon, Urey examined them at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory.
The samples supported Urey's contention that the moon and the Earth shared a common origin. When asked why he continued to work so hard, he joked, "Well, you know I'm not on tenure anymore. Urey enjoyed gardening, and raising cattleya , cymbidium and other orchids. In he received the National Medal of Science. Urey Prize , awarded for achievement in planetary sciences by the American Astronomical Society. Urey chair whose first holder is Jim Arnold.
Bar Katz was one of the featured artists of Labyrinth theatre company's series of artist salons, exploring the process artist go through to produce a finished product The other salons featured muMs and Daphne Rubin Vega. Katz creates a fantastic biography of Jerry Siegel, the co-creator of Superman, to explore the roots of art and its relationship to the world.
The History of Invulnerability speaks to the troubled yearnings of the human soul. The spectacular production is well worth seeing. The script by David Bar Katz is a powerful piece of writing In a article Backstage mentions "The History of Invulnerability", saying the play has "Deservedly won several awards".
Katz wrote a one-act play "Mothra Vs. It then was produced at City Theatre in Miami as part of its short play festival. David Bar Katz has been married to author and children's book publisher Julie Merberg since , they live in Manhattan with their four sons, the eldest of whom is a young writer by the name of Morris Akiba Katz.
He was a long time friend of Philip Seymour Hoffman , and was the one who found him dead on February 2, The Enquirer published an article that he was Hoffman's lover and gave him narcotics. Neither being true, Katz sued, and it was settled two days later. Katz wished to honor Hoffman, rather than gain anything for himself.