THE HILL
 

Orszag blasts 'loosey goosey' critiques of health legislation cost containment

By Jordan Fabian and Walter Alarkon - 11/25/09 01:50 PM ET

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Peter Orszag on Wednesday took aim at "loosey goosey" criticisms of the Democratic healthcare bill's ability to contain costs.

Orszag, in a conference call with reporters Wednesday, contrasted suggestions that the bill will lead to more federal debt with recent reports in The Atlantic and The New York Times that found that economists who have looked closely at the bill support many of its features.

"The folks who have done that kind of reporting come to a much different conclusion instead of a kind of 'loosey goosey, let's talk about things in the air instead of what's in the legislation,'" Orszag said.

Republicans in Congress have long said that the House and Senate healthcare bills will not bring down the rising cost of healthcare services and insurance premiums.

GOPers often cite a report from the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, which is part of the Health and Human Services Department, which said the House's bill fails to rein in costs and would likely not be able to sustain projected savings included in the measure.

In a preemptive response to the call, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, "All year, we’ve heard that certain reforms were needed to drive down costs. But the fact is that independent analysts and the American people have concluded these proposals would actually increase costs. The Democrat plans make it more expensive — and that's not reform."

Orszag's push back against the GOP attacks came ahead of next week's Senate debate on the healthcare bill.

Orszag touted the praise for the bill from health economists in academia, a former Congressional Budget Office director and economists who worked in President George W. Bush's administration. The health experts were all cited in recent stories by The Atlantic's Ron Brownstein and the Times' David Leonhardt.

In Brownstein's story, Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he had been a skeptic of past health reform bills but that he found the latest Senate legislation to be the "best effort anyone has ever made" at reining in costs.

Orszag suggested that others who have questioned the bill haven't been as thorough as Brownstein. He noted that The Atlantic reporter identified specific pages of the bill while interviewing him for the piece.

"I would say to folks in the looser range, 'What specifically else would you do?'" he added.

Orszag added that the legislation accomplished four objectives he said were key to any health cost containment: legislation that doesn't grow the federal deficit; an excise tax on high-premium health plans; an independent Medicare commission to encourage more efficient medical decisions; and delivery system reforms. Orszag said that the Senate bill achieved each of those objectives.

Though the economists in the stories praised the bill's efforts, they noted that several of the cost containment measures were watered down. Alan Garber, a Stanford University healthcare expert, told Leonhardt that he likes much of the bill but that it "needs to go further."

The Obama administration in recent days has turned to the independent reports to make their case to the public and to the centrist senators who are crucial to pushing the bill through the upper chamber. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told Obama aides to read Brownstein's piece, and the bill's supporters in the administration and in Congress have repeatedly noted that the independent CBO's scores of both the Senate and House bills found them to reduce the deficit over the next decade.


Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/69503-orszag-blasts-loose-goosey-critiques-of-health-bill

Comments (21)

It does make perfect sense that the Bill will cover 30 million more people and not cost any more than it does today, and that Obama has saved or created 647,000 jobs while unemployment has gone up to 10.2%, and the only way to get out of debt is to spend more money (gotta love Joe B.), and that GM is getting better by repaying $1.2B of their debt to the governement with a new loan from the government.Mr. Loosey, meet Mr. Goosey.I am the mob.BY Beesman on 11/25/2009 at 15:12
until this non-existent health bill finished going through its 5,000th draft, hits the senate floor for debate and americans can look at the final version with their own eyes for a few weeks, no memeber of this administration should being talking about "loosey goosey".BY john on 11/25/2009 at 15:29
I find it amusing that the "common sense" argument seems to fall along the lines of "How can we ensure that more people are covered without costs going up? We can't". Despite the fact that this argument is almost never based on any actual analysis of costs, it is not terribly difficult to do some simple math based on a comparison of GDP between the US and other similarly technologically advanced, market-oriented countries. The fact that the US spends approximately 50% more of GDP on healthcare than almost any other developed country (we spend approximately 14.5%-15.5% while Canada, Britain, Taiwan, Japan, France, Germaly and the rest of our peers spend between 9.5% and 10.5%) but have a very large percentage of the population uninsured should basically answer that criticism. The difference is unnecessary spending on ineffective procedures, administrative costs incurred by the bureaucratic byproducts of fragmentation, lack of economies of scale (also largely because of this fragmentation) and, perhaps most importantly, increasingly high profits on the part of the insurance companies and their suppliers. Every time an uninsured child suffers for lack of preventive care or effective, efficient treatment the shareholders of Aetna and United and Kaiser Permanente and their cohorts benefit through the profits they have retained. Private health insurance is not only harmful to our society and grossly inefficient in its current form, it is immoral. I daresay that none of us argue about the benefits of having made policing and fire departments public institutions (they both used to be private, back in the bad-old-days). Why are we having this debate about health insurance? Perhaps we are not really debating healthcare policy or the proposed changes to the system, so much as using this issue as a proxy for the political battle between the right and the left. It is a shame that we would reward politicians that play politics with both our lives and our livelihoods.BY Mike Palmeter on 11/25/2009 at 15:41
No wonder the White House has a difficult time getting a coherent message across when you have Princeton educated graduates speaking as if they never graduated from grammer school. Who in the [***] do people like Peter (who apparently was fleeced by Princeton for a lacking education) think they are talking to? Talk about white trash elitist!BY John S on 11/25/2009 at 15:44
Mike Palmeter on 11/25/2009 at 15:41Who has created the bulk of healthcare innovation for the world?Who has a higher denial rate for treatments, Medicare or private insurance?Is 2% a "high" profit?Why are we not discussing Tort reform?Why are we not talking about anitquated restrictions on competition tha Congress put in years ago?Why are we not discussing reforms that make sense and that will not ruin what we already have? Yes there needs to be changes, not detruction.My guess is you are not involved in healthcare but "know" what we should do. My humble prediction if this goes through. - You will pay 20% more for less than what you have now and pay another 20% for a rider policy to get what you have now. Gee, just like in Europe…BY TucsonWilly on 11/25/2009 at 16:43
The four main objectives should be: medical tort reform; shopping for competitive insurance across state lines; eliminate pre-condition clauses; and delivery system reforms. Let's toss the 2,000 pages and start from scratch for A CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. Oh, yes, and throw out the $300,000,000 promised to Landreiu.BY pvbeachbum on 11/25/2009 at 17:15
Another entitlement for the poor and stupid… YIPPEE!!! Obamacare doesn't do anything to hold down medical costs, it just increases taxes, increases fees, decreases life expectancy, and decreases jobs in America.BY MMMM MMMM MMMM on 11/25/2009 at 17:25
John S doesn't tell us what his qualifications are but I would guess that they are not 1/1000 of those of the brilliant Peter Orzag. Not only did Orzag graduate cum laude from Princeton, but he also has a master's and PhD in economics from the London School of Economics. He has years of background on the economics of health care and it's effects on the overall economy of the country. For John S to just claim out of the blue that Orzag is talking like he never graduated from grammer school does not make it so. It only points out the ignorance of John S and his ilk. Who is Orzag talking to? Certainly not John S! He's talking ABOUT John S and people like him who "talk about things in the air, instead of what's in the bill" And he's talking TO those who are interested in FACTS upon which to base their opinions instead of basing their opinions on things they just pull out of the air. Talking TO the John S's of the country is like, in the words of Barney Frank, "talking to the kitchen table." I have utter contempt for an idiot who would call this brilliant leading expert on health care economics a "white trash elitist." It's the worst kind of ad hominem attack. But then I'll hazard a guess that they didn't teach logic or debate at the schools near John S' trailer park.BY Smilinjack on 11/25/2009 at 17:27
@TucsonWilly on 11/25/2009 at 16:43 "Who has created the bulk of healthcare innovation for the world?Who has a higher denial rate for treatments, Medicare or private insurance?Is 2% a "high" profit?" We certainly are not the innovators. Look at the innovative new surgeries that are being performed abroad (transplants, etc.), the gene therapies that people are flying to Japan and Germany for, the stem-cell therapies that are being developed in France. Heck, a majority of private hospitals are still working on a paper system while the rest of the developed world (and the VA, ahem) are on the cutting edge with integrated EMR systems. For every Canadian that someone miraculously knows that drives to the US for their non-emergent MRI or boob job; there are Americans crossing the boarder looking for more advanced technologies and therapies, cheaper prices for the same drugs, and even basic medical services. Palmeter is right on; and the more watered-down the public plan gets, the less likely the cost-containment part of this legislation will achieve its goal. That being said, the other fixes mentioned by TUSCONWILLY will hopefully have their day as well. Tort reform, restoring interstate competition, and maybe even a revocation of the anti-trust exemptions. Though if WILLY has ever been to Europe, he would realize that his 20% statements are patently false.BY Brian on 11/25/2009 at 17:29
TUCSONWILLY on 11/25/2009 at 16:43Well, if you want to ignore the GDP comparison (the fact that there is a difference irrefutably demonstrates inefficiency - the "why are we less efficient?" question comes next), one clue would be looking at the Medical Loss Ratio as it has changed over time.http://www.pwc.com/us/en/healthcare/publications/popups/medical-loss-ratio.jhtmlIn the PWC chart (referenced above), which may or may not be a truly accurate reflection, the percentage of insurance company revenues directly allocated to actual medical care has continued to decline to somewhat more than 82 cents of every dollar, with the (approximately) $.18 remaining being allocated to administrative costs and profits. Beyond that assessment is the question of the profit margins enjoyed by the service and product providers that actually deliver the care. While it may be the case that the US has been home to a great deal of innovation in terms of healthcare products, it is not at all clear that these products are effectively employed to help us realize the best possible outcomes at the lowest reasonable cost. Given how much we spend, given the fact that outcomes for American patients are not significantly better than in other countries with different systems, it would seem reasonable to question whether a private for-profit insurance system may also be contributing to the "more but not necessarily better" approach we take toward treatment. Again, we do not need to know why we have a problem to observe that there is one, or even to know how big it is. While the proposals that are being discussed in the house and senate may not cure all the ills with the current system, they do represent progress on many of the egregious failings of the current system that we have identified thus far. In fact, were it not for some unfortunate political issues, we could do much better. Republican obstructionism and petty politicking are forcing legislators to water down the proposals and deflect some of the major changes that could credibly bring the US to the same level of efficiency as our competitors. A single-payer system, for example, isn't even being discussed at this point. The biggest risk we face is that the bill that is finally signed into law will not go far enough, even though we are certainly moving in the right direction.BY Mike Palmeter on 11/25/2009 at 17:46

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.