- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: I need help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
- HAYDEN: Intelligence, evidence and the case against Russia
Medicare director won’t ID donors to think tank
Insists he abides by ethics rules
Question of the Day
Before he took over the nation’s Medicare and Medicaid agency this summer, Dr. Donald Berwick retired from the nonprofit health care think tank he co-founded with a nearly $900,000 compensation package and a seven-figure executive retirement plan.
But Dr. Berwick is declining to say exactly who provided funding to the Massachusetts-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement in response to Republicans who question whether the new Medicare chief could have a conflict of interest if medical-device companies or health plans helped make his generous compensation package possible in the first place.
Last week, Dr. Berwick, who is administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), declined to release information about donors to the nonprofit group where he served as chief executive, saying he no longer worked there and had no authority to release information that was not public.
“You can be assured that I will comply with all of the recusal and other obligations contained in my ethics agreement,” Dr. Berwick wrote.
The Washington Times reported earlier this month that a review of some of the funding sources of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement show health care entities that don’t appear on Dr. Berwick’s financial disclosure or on the standard ethics agreement that officials use to root out potential conflicts of interest.
The BlueCross BlueShield Association of America, Cardinal Health Foundation, Aetna Foundation, the Rx Foundation and Baxter International are among the nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s publicly disclosed donors, giving $50,000 to $5 million each to the institute’s “5 Million Lives Campaign” hospital-safety initiative.
Yet under the ethics rules, nominees such as Dr. Berwick needs to disclose only donors or former clients that provided more than $5,000 for services that the nominee personally was involved in providing.
The provision means that a group such as BlueCross BlueShield could have given the institute more than $1 million, but if Dr. Berwick wasn’t personally involved in providing any services, he wouldn’t have to disclose the donor information. On the other hand, if he earned just $5,000 giving a speech to a trade association, federal ethics lawyers would insist on vetting the arrangement for a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Grassley said the donor details remain important because unlike most political nominees, Dr. Berwick didn’t go through the standard confirmation process whereby senators could question him about his background during a confirmation hearing.
President Obama gave Dr. Berwick a recess appointment, meaning he can serve until the end of the next session of Congress without a confirmation hearing.
“The CMS administrator has authority for the health coverage of more than 100 million Americans and manages a budget larger than the Pentagon’s,” Mr. Grassley said Friday. “At least a minimal amount of transparency is necessary for the head of such an influential agency.”
Mr. Grassley said a committee hearing into Dr. Berwick’s nomination would have examined the institute’s funding and identified potential conflicts of interest in his job overseeing Medicare and Medicaid.
“The public doesn’t have enough information to be able to evaluate his capacity to serve without any conflicts,” Mr. Grassley said.
But Dr. Berwick said he has undergone a stringent ethics review. In his letter to Mr. Grassley, he pointed out that he won’t participate in any particular matters that have a direct financial impact on two of his former clients, the Commonwealth Fund and Kaiser Permanente. He also said he has had no financial interest in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. He said the institute does not and will not provide health coverage for him or his family.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Jim McElhatton is an investigative reporter for The Washington Times. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- House federal records plan would prevent repeat of IRS email scandal
- Whistleblowers flood VA with lawsuits despite apology
- Outrage over $190M deal for troubled federal contractor USIS
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- White House warned about 'antiquated' VA scheduling system 5 years ago
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Russia shipping sophisticated weapons systems to Ukraine separatists
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- Ohio university quiz implies atheists are naturally smarter than Christians
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- EDITORIAL: Detroit's water 'spigot bigots'
- White House readies for House GOP impeachment push: 'Foolish' to ignore
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq