The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Customer Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out

  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Times News Services
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Алекс Овечкин
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
    • Donne Travels
    • Lives Common
    • National Pastime
    • Politics 101
    • Stories of Faith
    • Civil War
    • Middle - America
    • Chicago Blue State
    • Zadzooks
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Inside the Beltway
    • Inside the Story
Home > Opinion > Commentary

MOFFIT: A high court of health

By Robert Moffit | Monday, January 12, 2009

  • Bookmark and Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Print
  • [-][+] Font Size
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Tell a Friend
  • Got a Question?
  • You Report
  • Click-2-Listen
COMMENTARY:

"Details kill." That's Tom Daschle, President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of health and human services and the nation's new "health-care czar," explaining to the Associated Press why national health reform has failed in the past. Big, clumsy Clinton-style health reform bills, the size of a telephone book, read and analyzed by ordinary people - that, according to Mr. Daschle, led to fatal criticism.

Translation: If we hadn't spelled out the specifics of what we really wanted, we could have gotten our schemes past the public without a lot of noisy and unpleasant dissent and safely enacted into law.

Ironically, Mr. Daschle has given us quite a few details in a short and very readable book, "Critical: What We Can Do About The Health Care Crisis." He describes his proposal for a Federal Health Board, a powerful body that would make key recommendations on the kinds of medical technologies, treatments, drugs and procedures Americans should have.

Mr. Obama has also proposed an "institute" that would judge the "comparative effectiveness" of medical treatments, procedures and therapies, as well as drugs, devices and technologies. But, fortunately, Mr. Daschle outlined his proposal in much greater detail.

Mr. Daschle models his Board on the Federal Reserve Board, with a governing body of politically appointed experts. But he insists these special appointees would be "insulated from politics." These appointees would "oversee the health-care industry" and have the power to make "complicated medical decisions and the independence to resist political pressures." Additionally, they would "help define evidence-based benefits and lower overall spending by determining which medicines, treatments and procedures are most effective - and identifying those that do not justify their high price tags." Translation: denied payment.

The Federal Health Board's range of powers would be very broad. Its appointees would set rules for private health insurers who would participate in a new national pool. They also would recommend benefit coverage, including drugs and medical procedures, to be included in all government health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million federal workers and retirees and their families.

Mr. Daschle's Board would also "rank" therapies and medical services based on what the board determined to be their "cost effectiveness," and suggest priorities for medical research. It would establish payment rules and standards for doctors and other medical professionals to meet the board's definition of "quality" care. Payment to doctors and other medical professionals would depend on how well they complied with government guidelines for medical practice.

Mr. Daschle is refreshingly frank about the enormous power of his Federal Health Board, which he says would act like a "Supreme Court of Health." It would not only limit insurers in offering health benefits. Mr. Daschle admits it would further alter the already weakened doctor-patient relationship: "Doctors and patients might resent any encroachment on their ability to choose certain treatments, even if they are expensive or ineffective compared to the alternatives." So forget about complaining to your congressman, even if he or she is funding your coverage with taxpayers' money.

The decisions of this Federal Health Board would, at first, affect only those Americans enrolled in government health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. But Mr. Daschle suggests expanding its powers to health plans that cover all Americans. This could be done, he suggests, by linking "the tax exclusion for health insurance that complies with the board's recommendations."

In other words, if private-sector employers don't comply, the price of that disobedience would be a severe tax penalty on employers and employees. So, don't even think about noncompliance.

In short, Mr. Daschle's prescription for health care reform is centralized government control over our health-care decisions by a powerful elite that will decide what's good for us, and what isn't.

Of course, the health-care sector of our economy is blessed with a treasure trove of professional expertise, from our finest universities to our world-class medical centers. But those men and women - regardless of how innovative their recommendations are, and no matter how impressive their achievements in medical science, biomedical research, technology or clinical experience may be - wouldn't count. Only Mr. Daschle's "Supreme Court of Health" would count.

Yep, details can kill.

Robert E. Moffit is director of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies (heritage.org).

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Bookmark and Share

Comments

Read Comments

Post your comment:

Please login or register to post a comment

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

  • Former Sen. Tom Daschle, nominated to be secretary of health and human services, is a longtime proponent of the president-elect's health care reform strategy. (Mary F. Calvert/The Washington Times)

Click the photo to enlarge.

Advertisement

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds
  2. EXCLUSIVE: Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
  3. CIA chief urged to 'correct' record
  4. Obama agenda stalls on Capitol Hill
  5. EDITORIAL: Stonewalling on Walpin-gate

Most Shared

  1. EXCLUSIVE: Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
  2. GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds
  3. PRUDEN: Ministry of Apology would cure all ills
  4. Obama agenda stalls on Capitol Hill
  5. EDITORIAL: Killing Cap & Trade
  6. EDITORIAL: Stonewalling on Walpin-gate
  7. YON: Girl with no future
  8. EDITORIAL: Sotomayor's secret files
  9. EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws
  10. CIA chief urged to 'correct' record

Most Commented

  1. Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
  2. WH communications director leaving
  3. Freddie Mac acting CFO found dead
  4. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
  5. Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' words
  6. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  7. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  8. Gibbs: Pay no attention to what Rahm said
  9. Politics' Talking Heads Highlight Speaker Series
  10. Fleecing Mike Ditka

Poll

Do you think the G-8 is still effective in today's times?

Market Data

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.