{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022367194780987885, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007455731593662628, 'mean_word_length': 5.208092485549133, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Medicare reform: nibbling at catastrophic costs.

Prologue: The 1980s have produced virtually no new federal health programs and few new benefits in existing programs. Congress has been largely consumed by efforts to constrain the growth of health entitlement programs created in an earlier era when tax revenues were easier to come by. Nevertheless, health and medical issues have remained popular subjects for politicians to address. And in the few instances where President Reagan actually proposed a liberalization of a federal program. Congress reacted with enthusiasm. In this paper, Judith Feder, Marilyn Moon, and William Scanlon explore the limits of health care reform—1980s style—pointing out that the Medicare catastrophic benefit under discussion on Capitol Hill is less than meets the eye or fits the rhetoric. Feder, who holds a doctorate in political science from Harvard University, and Scanlon, who has a similar degree in economics from the University of Wisconsin, are codirectors of Georgetown University's Center for Health Policy Studies. The cent...