In another fine example of why the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is such an over reach, it seems that they are having a tough time finding people to actually be on the panel. Apparently people actually want to be paid at least somewhat what they are worth and the job isn't going to allow that. When you consider how much scrutiny the board members will be under, I can't blame people for not wanting to take part in it. Sooner or later there will be a death attributed to the panel and I wouldn't want to be one of those people getting the blame and most likely, the lawsuit.

LabCoats12

Jonathan Gruber was one of the Obama administration’s key advisers during the health-care reform debate. As the economist who conceived the ideas at the heart of the Massachusetts health-care law, he is arguably the intellectual godfather of the Affordable Care Act.

All of which would make him a natural fit for the Independent Payment Advisory Board, the new, 15-member panel that has the authority to reduce Medicare doctors’ reimbursements and pilot new ways to deliver high quality care for less. There’s just one tiny problem: Gruber has absolutely no interest in serving on the panel. “No way,” he says without pause. “Maybe if it was a part-time gig. But full time? I can’t see it.”

It’s not just Gruber. Obama’s former health policy advisers worry that other top health economists, those in hot demand in academia and in the industry, won’t be interested in a federal job where the compensation is low, the political controversy high and the ultimate payoff unclear.

“It is supposed to be 15 members, with limited salaries who can’t do any outside work,” says Peter Orszag, the former director of the Office of Budget and Management under Obama who was a key proponent of IPAB. “It will be challenging to find top 15 health-care experts are who would want that job.”

“You’re joining an organization that has uncertain authority with the certainty of being deeply political and widely criticized,” says Bob Kocher, a former Obama health policy adviser. “It doesn’t make sense for current thought leaders in American health care to want this.”

(flickr)

(flickr)

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is one of the Affordable Care Act’s most aggressive attempts at bending the health cost curve downwards. Its goal is to ensure Medicare grows just one percentage point faster than the rest of the economy, much slower than historical trends.

To get there, the board has the power to change the amount of Medicare’s doctor payments. Until now, that authority has been held only by legislators. Unless Congress can recommend and pass an equally big set of spending reductions, the IPAB cuts take effect automatically.

The board has drawn heavy criticism since it became part of the health-care law, with detractors drawing fire from the Obama administration and the health-care act’s other supporters for referring to the board as a  “death panel” that would “ration” seniors’ care. Even Democrats who staunchly support the Affordable Care Act have blasted the IPAB as an unjustified power grab.

“The Independent Payment Advisory Board brings unpredictably and uncertainty to providers,” says Rep. Allyson Y. Schwartz, a Democrat from Pennyslvania, who has supported multiple bills to repeal the board altogether.

To become a member of this already-maligned board, health policy experts have to undergo what one former Senate aide describes as a “super-double challenge”: Meet the requirements set out in the law and then face confirmation hearings.

“It’s not only the challenge of finding people who will serve but also people who will serve and can get confirmed by the Senate,” says John McDonough, a Harvard professor who worked for the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) during the health reform debate.

The health law specifies that the board be made up of “individuals with national recognition for their expertise in health finance and economics, actuarial science,” and other related medical fields.

Members will serve a six-year term and during that time are barred from “any other business, vocation or employment.” For their service, IPAB members will make an annual salary of $165,300, less than they would likely earn in the private sector or academia.

“This is going to be a tough one to fill,” says Bill Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center, who has  done policy stints at health insurer Cigna and in the Senate. “If someone is extremely knowledgeable, they’re probably at some place where they’re making a lot more money. It will be a cut in pay.”

Hoagland and others still believe that the administration will find 15 people to fill the IPAB seats. The stringent requirements, however, will weed out some top talent who might otherwise be interested.

“They’ll find people,” says MIT’s Gruber. “There are many who are, no doubt, very qualified. But I think they’ll miss out on a number of the very best.”

Judy Feder, a public policy professor at Georgetown University, has testified before Congress that she would be “proud to serve” as a member of the IPAB. “I think its the primary mechanism we ought to be using to contain costs and increase efficiency,” she says. “I would like to see it done right and be part of accomplishing that.”

IPAB seats unfilled by blocked confirmations or a lack of interest, the Affordable Care Act includes a fallback measure. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has the authority to produce her own set of cost-cutting measures. Like those of the IPAB’s, they would also take effect automatically should Congress not pass an alternative.

There’s also the possibility that the IPAB won’t have much work to do this year: It produces its cost-cutting policy proposal only when Medicare is growing much faster than the rest of the economy. For the past three years, Medicare growth has slowed to the same rate.

The final decision won’t be made, however, until the end of April, when the Office of the Medicare Actuary releases its annual forecasts on Medicare cost growth. Kocher, a former Obama administration adviser, sees this as a sort of blessing in disguise because it buys the board a bit more time.

“There won’t be anything for it to do this year, based on previous forecasts,” says Kocher.  “That’s good, because it won’t have anybody working on it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/who-want...

Views: 194

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Tried to warn people about this but the sheeples did not believe. Wonder if they do now that it is affecting younger people with chronic illnesses? Smokers will have to pay higher premiums and now I heard they intend to force obese people to pay higher premiums as well. Yep Big Brother is in our private lives.

And it's going to get worse. The Government will now be able to regulate every aspect of our lives if they determine that any of our behavior is considered "risky". This is going to get out of hand in a big way. I feel sorry for seniors because their health providers will be receiving much less compensation for their services and most doctors will be forced to eliminate servicing medicare patients just so they can stay in business. I've heard that many older doctors are  going to close their doors and retire just to avoid the hassles. What a bunch of idiots these Obama and Democrat supporters are because they are the reason we are in this predicament. I have liberal friends and family members but I'm getting to the point where I don't even want to be around them. They still sing the praises of Obama even while he is drowning us in debt and regulations and eliminating our freedoms.

I would gladly join the death panel if I could decide what type and kind of health care the members of Congress could receive. The first thing I would approve is a lobotomy for Debbie Stabyounow and Carl Leftist and for the rest of the idiots who voted for Obama care I would approve for each and everyone of them a nice long stay at the nearest asylum.

Actually, I don't know if lobotomies would do any good for most members of congress because I think they have to have brains for a lobotomy to do any good ;-)

Isn't it amazing that if you break down all the individual over reaches of the government under OB care. Even many liberals dont like it. This is why having the media be a cheer leader, rather than a critical eye, is going to be the undoing of this republic. Maybe they should teach, what is wrong with revisionist history, in mass media classes.

After all Pelosi did say we needed to pass OB care to see whats in OB care.

Just think, the decision on whether you live or die could be made by a small group of people that may decide your fate because of how you vote, or how you live your life.  Will there be a metric on who deserves to live or die?  Granted, you may be at a disadvantage now if you are not rich or have no health insurance, but at least nobody is making some value judgment on your life, and whether it would be more expedient for society to say no to trying to save you.  Typical Progressive eugenic view of society.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service