Case Examples. Pharmacist-Provided Care for Controlling Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, and High Cholesterol The Asheville Project, the Patient Self-Management Program for Diabetes (PSMP), and the Diabetes Xxx Xxxx Challenge (DTCC) were efforts by self-insured employers to provide education and mentoring for employees with chronic health problems such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. Patients were enrolled in collaborative care programs that included a community pharmacist on their health care team.14–18 When the pro- grams were assessed, researchers found the following benefits: Savings on Overall Health Spending Asheville: Average net savings of $1,622–$3,356 per person per year.14,15 PSMP: Average net savings of $918 per person per year.16 DTCC: Average net savings of $1,079 per person per year.17,18 Improved Patient Health Asheville: 50% average reduction in number of sick days.14,15 PSMP: 100% of study participants had their gly- cosylated hemoglobin (A1C) level tested; 94% of patients met the Health Plan Employer Data
Case Examples. Pechory Treasure A case with similarities to the Crimean Gold case is the return of the so-called Pechory Treasure to a Russian-Orthodox monastery in May 1973.70 The story behind it is that of the return ‘home’ of the treasures of the Orthodox Pskovo- Pechersky Dormition Monastery in Pechory (‘Petserin’ in Estonian and ‘Pet- xxxxx’ in German), in Russia, in an area that borders Estonia. It used to be under independent Estonian rule, however had been under Russian control since 1945. The Treasure – ecclesiastical objects and secular objects related to the history of the Monastery – was taken by Nazi officials in 1945 in anticipa- tion of the advancing Russian army. It was discovered in the early 1970s, having been kept for decades in the storage area of a German museum, away from the public eye, by a German researcher.71 At that point, a return claim was voiced by the Monastery (as well as by the Estonian World Council in exile). After lengthy discussions on the legal implications of the case with a focus on the Baltic question (the non-recognition of Soviet rule over Estonian and other Baltic territory by Western European nations), the Treasure was returned directly to the Monastery by the authorities of the German Federal Republic. This, after the formal consent by Soviet authorities, in effective control over the territory, constituted an acknowledgement that the Treasure would remain in the Monastery.72 In that sense, the return may be compared to the present dispute as in both instances the implicit recognition of an unrecognised state loomed around the corner as an unwanted side-effect of any act of restitution. In the German- Estonian-Soviet case of the Pechory Treasure a solution was found – and the politically sensitive issue of the ‘Baltic question’ was avoided – by the restitu- tion of the objects directly to the Monastery. This, thanks perhaps to a moment of détente in international relations.
