Thanks, Prashanth. I agree with you that some of these things, such as the short consultations, we knew about already. But this study breaks new ground in at least two areas, and I’d urge you to read more than the abstract of the paper! First, as Das has discussed elsewhere in his work, vignettes capture what a provider knows, while what’s he and his coauthors are trying to capture here is what a provider does. By sitting in on consultations, they already found there’s a big gap between the two. But sitting in on consultations may produce misleading data because the provider knows they’re being watched. One area Das et al break new ground is moving to standardized patients which are considered a better way of getting at what providers actually do. Second, Das et al. show the correlates of quality. They find that quality isn’t higher among qualified providers, nor is it higher among public providers in MH. In fact, in both MH and Delhi it’s the private providers who ask more of the right questions and do more of the right tests. That’s why I say that this study is a bit of a cold shower: it’s hard to argue based on this study that medical education and private sector regulation are the right answers.