Obama To Fill A Big, Big Job

In this week’s cover story, we noted that one of the biggest challenges for the Obama Administration in implementing the new health care law is:

… filling key posts in the Executive Branch that remain empty more than 14 months after Obama was inaugurated. After all, there will be thousands and thousands of new regulations to be written and administered. But no one has yet been named to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the huge agency that runs those two programs. And Senate Republicans have held up the nomination of Columbia University professor Sherry Glied for the important post of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services. Congressman George Miller, chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, grouses that the Administration “is going to have to be more aggressive. They have not been aggressive enough on the appointments process.”

Today, the NYT’s Robert Pear reports the Administration has settled on someone to run the agency that runs Medicare and Medicaid. The early reviews are good:

WASHINGTON — President Obama will soon name Dr. Donald M. Berwick, an iconoclastic scholar of health policy, to run Medicare and Medicaid, the programs that serve nearly one-third of all Americans, administration officials said Saturday.

Dr. Berwick, a pediatrician, is president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Cambridge, Mass. He has repeatedly challenged doctors and hospitals to provide better care at a lower cost. He says the government and insurers can increase the quality and efficiency of care by basing payments on the value of services, not the volume.

Mr. Obama plans to nominate Dr. Berwick to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a unit of the Department of Health and Human Services that has been without a permanent chief since October 2006, when Dr. Mark B. McClellan stepped down.

If confirmed by the Senate, Dr. Berwick would have a huge plate of responsibilities under the new health care law.

The law, signed Tuesday by Mr. Obama, will expand Medicaid to cover 16 million more people, squeeze nearly a half-trillion dollars out of Medicare in the next 10 years and establish many demonstration projects to test innovative ways of delivering health care.

Dr. Berwick’s nomination would be subject to Senate confirmation. Senators would almost surely use a confirmation hearing as a forum to debate the merits of the new health care law and to investigate how the administration plans to carry it out.

Steven D. Findlay, a health policy analyst at Consumers Union, said: “This would be a spectacular appointment. Don has been an intellectual force in health care for decades. He helped forge many ideas incorporated in the new health care law.”

As examples, Mr. Findlay cited provisions of the law intended to reduce readmissions to hospitals, prevent hospital-acquired infections and hold doctors and hospitals more accountable.

Dr. Elliott S. Fisher, director of the Center for Health Policy Research at Dartmouth Medical School, said Dr. Berwick was “a visionary leader who can motivate people to change.”

The early reaction from Hill Republicans is wary, judging by this statement from Senator Charles Grassley, ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, which will handle the appointment:

“This is always a big job, but the administration of health care reform, which includes implementing the hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts and the biggest expansion of Medicaid in its history, will make it more challenging than ever. The Finance Committee vetting will need to explore the nominee’s preparedness for the enormous challenges that face the agency.”

I’m predicting a big fight–mostly, because pretty much everything is a big fight these days. But this is a job that needs to be filled, so it will be unfortunate if this nomination turns into a relitigation of the entire health care debate, rather than focusing on Berwick’s qualifications.

Related Topics: centers for medicare and medicare services, charles grassley, donald berwick, medicaid, medicare, presidential appointment, Barack Obama, Congress, Health Care
  • Latest on Swampland

    Obama to Submit His Budget to Congress on Monday

    President Barack Obama is pressing for investments in infrastructure while relying on familiar tax increases on the wealthy and corporations to claim progress on the federal deficit in his upcoming budget.

    Romney: I Was A 'Severely Conservative' GovernorHuffPost Politics

    Robert F. Bukaty / AP

    With Saturday Victories, Romney Retakes Control of the GOP Narrative

    Mitt Romney, the perpetually questioned front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, had a rough week. Three embarrassing losses to Rick Santorum in Tuesday’s non-binding contests led to questions about Romney’s conservative bona fides just in time for GOP activists, gathering at their annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, to collectively grumble about it. But in two narrow, largely symbolic victories on Saturday, Romney reclaimed the headlines. Never mind the details. He was winning again.

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks, KT. Will you take a well-earned mini-vacation to treat yourself for your HCR (+ this morning’s podcast)? Is Dr. Rusty is bitter about not getting the job? After reading Jay’s recess appts. post and your caution here about R resistance, do your tea leaves see a recess appointment here too? Or is D support solid enough? (I’m looking forward to a Real Filibuster™ on unemployment benefits, but doubt the R’s would do that here.) Thanks for your thoughts / work, KT, and enjoy your evening.

  • Cliff

    I don’t understand why you’re quoting Grassley. He was revealed as a dishonest bargainer in HCR negotiations, why should we listen to what he has to say now?

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    He is the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which will be handling the confirmation. If he wants to hold up this nomination, he can.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    Thanks. It doesn’t sound as though Obama is going to do this one as a recess appt.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    Here’s a link, which explains why Grassley is relevant to quote here:
    .
    http://iowaindependent.com/25707/grassley-denies-intentionally-delaying-obama-nominees

  • carotexas1

    Karen thank you for posting this and the link for Grassley.

  • Cliff

    I appreciate the response. I zipped right past that part in your post, and I shouldn’t have.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Sing it with me now people!

    “Country roads, take me home,
    To the place, I belong
    West Virginia mountain mama,
    Take me home, country roads”

  • carotexas1

    Karen, according to the president of the AMA J.James Rohack family practice doctors will get a boost in payments for medicaid patients. I think someone was asking about this. I had remembered it was discussed but could not remember if it was in the final bill until I saw this.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/032710dnbusdoctors.4111a4f.html

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    Here’s the relevant part from the Kaiser side by side:
    .
    In addition, increase Medicaid payments in fee-for-service and managed care for primary care services provided by primary care doctors (family medicine, general internal medicine or pediatric medicine) to 100% of the Medicare payment rates for 2013 and 2014. States will receive 100% federal financing for the increased payment rates. (Effective January 1, 2014)
    .
    http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm
    .
    It’s a badly needed move, but only brings them up to Medicare rates (which are lower than private insurance) and states only get reimbursed for this for two years. Governors tell me that the medicaid reimbursements are going to have to go up for all providers, and permanently, if they want to find providers willing to take these new medicaid enrollees. The govs are afraid that their budgets will be on the hook for this. I have also been told by knowledgeable officials on Capitol Hill that these costs are not accounted for in the CBO score, which is required to assume existing law.

  • trifecta55

    Back on the recess appointments issue for a sec, and I have a question KT.
    .
    Do the Republicans expect the Democrats to act this badly when roles are reversed, or do they expect dems to cave when Broder writes his first column.

  • kathy

    You better beat Duke if you have the chance!

  • kathy

    KT – is it likely that Obama will submit this nomination, and then use a recess appointment during the next recess if it goes nowhere?

  • carotexas1

    Thank you Karen, States will have some savings from the expense of uninsured not using hospital emergency facilities will this help in the extra cost of the medicaid boost?
    .
    I may be wrong but it looks to me that states will now have the pressure to keep medical costs down by the choices they make with exchanges and insurance controls. State by state comparisons are sure to be made.

  • newfreedomblog

    Dr Berwick sounds like a good candidate going forward in the pursuit to look at the healthcare delivery system, and improve upon it. Many of his initial ideas are already in the works with Medicare.
    .
    Medicare already has in place a system to audit hospital admissions and discharges for chronic illnesses. A targeted plan to penalize those hospitals and doctors who do not have a higher than average percent of patients who are not readmitted with an exacerbation of their illness within a short period of time from their previous discharge has been initiated.

    However, CMS is also penalizing by simply making cuts in the bill for home health agencies and nursing homes for reimbursements. They have made across the board cuts randomly without consideration or studies, and the new law is asking for more cuts in reimbursements.

    Soon you shall see over 16 million more people added to the rolls of the insured. States will quickly become over-burdened with the cost. Massachusetts’ budget is already seeing healthcare costs make up more than 52% of their overall budgets. This is completely unsustainable. Massachusetts has been subsidized for the past 3 years with the same type of healthcare system that ObamaCare is based upon. If measures are not quickly put into place, other States collectively will see the same and the Federal Government (the Tax Payers) will once again be asked to send in more tax dollars.
    .
    If cost of healthcare is not immediately addressed, which this law does virtually nothing about, it will soon become one huge sucking machine of tax dollars out of our pockets. People are already angry at the waste and out of control spending, how will they feel about more tax dollars being levied upon them to give back to the States? The wheels of Government move too slow.
    .
    I predict we shall see a tax revolt long before any “stuides” or “demonstration projects” will yield any results. Doctors will leave their practices in droves as the result of major cuts to their payments begin. People who will have insurance under this law will face rationing of healthcare services, IF they are lucky enough to find a doctor who will accept their new Medicad or Medicare card to even take on their individual case.
    .
    As many conservatives said from the start of this, it is too much too soon and too big to manage. Especially for one man, Dr Berwick who has no experience in managing large Government Agencies or Hospitals.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    KT: Why isn’t the lead the: “GOP plays political games with critical jobs leaving the nation’s welfare hanging in the balance” or “GOP no longer stands for Grand Ole Party nowadays GOP = Games Only Please Statesman need not apply.”
    .
    Seems to me instead of being entertained by the Republican’s relentless gamesmanship, there ought to be some outrage over their willingness to sit by and let his country sink into a morass rather than do the jobs they are being paid to do because they are no longer in charge. Frankly, I wish I could demand that we dock their pay for implementing a work slow down. Funny, they hate unions but never hesitate to use the tactics of collective bargaining and are always trying to shut down the means of production until they get their way. Unfortunately, I don’t get to stop my taxes from being used to pay the salaries of Republican members of Congress or their staff who are trying to disrupt my government. It’s one thing to campaign as you see fit, but they ought not get a pass for deliberately causing hardship to unemployed Americans dependent on unemployment checks for their very survival for a second time just because they’ve chosen not to represent these citizens as zealously as they represent themselves. Clearly, it has become far more important to have a tantrum over Democratic success than to ensure the preservation of the union. Its just like when they keep say they represent the American people as if their partisans are Americans and the rest of us are not.
    .
    You would think the media would take these acts of intimidation more seriously, if these people can ignore the constitution and try to make torture legal, ignore the result of an election and use intimidation to thwart the consequences of that election — how long do you think it will be before they come after you? Remeber the only constuitional protections they canre about is the second and the tenth all others are questionable when it doesn’t suit them.

  • carotexas1

    Rusty the States are now in control of medical cost for their states which I think is what you wanted. They can decided to make good choices to lower costs or they can cry and complain.

  • newfreedomblog

    IF it were only that simple minded, caroltexas. The new Federal law requires States to change the guidelines for people to be eligible for Medicaid for example.
    .
    The States will be reimbursed for only two maybe three years from the Federal Govt. Then, like in Massachusetts they will need to come up with the funding for the new guidelines to meet the law. The States also have to have balanced budgets, unlike the Federal Govt which can spend willy-nilly and tax as they see fit to make up part of the deficits. The Federal Govt can also borrow at will as we know.
    .
    This is why this new ObamaCare law will fail. This is why you see the States taking objection to this new law and calling for a lawsuit to challenge it. We as tax payers have a choice this November to elect fiscally responsible representation. I am confident the tax payers of this country are sick and tired of both parties spending like drunken sailors. It is time for We the People to tax back control, and tell the Representatives and Obama who exactly is in charge.

  • carotexas1

    Rusty because states have to balance budgets I wondered why they did not get behind a national Public Option medicare plus five.
    .
    Now they can chose to pick options and insurance controls that will lower costs. I do not think the options of denying coverage to low income to balance budget will be as easy as before. Does Massachusetts have Medicare plus five?

  • newfreedomblog

    It looks by search that the “Medicare plus 5″ you refer to was not part of the final bill passed. In October 2009 there were many calls put out to pass it in the bill, but it was not successful.
    .
    I tried to look up Medicare plus 5 for Massachusetts, but no results returned.

  • 3xfire3

    Dee,

    The actual truth is that none of these programs will be successful unless the Administration and the Democrats actually bring the Republicans in as real partner in the drafting of major legislation.

    The problems can not honestly be blamed 100% on the Republicans. The truth is that the Democrats thought they didn’t need the Republicans because of their large majorities in both houses of congress.

    This was a major mistake and the Administration and Democrats are now suffering the consequences of their decisions not to include Republicans as partners in drafting these controversial programs.

    They didn’t understand history which has shown that major social legislation must be bipartisan to be truly successful.

    Until the Administration and the Democrats call a ceasefire and truly bring the Republicans in on the drafting of major legislation, they will always have a major fight to get legislation passed.

    Don’t try to say they have done this because the actual facts show they really did not.

  • trifecta55

    3X, hogwash. Obama was desperate to get the fig leaf of bipartisanship. Obama put about 120 GOP ideas in the bill. They could have gotten things like tort reform in the bill if they were willing to vote for it.
    .
    The Republicans refused to deal even when the dems tossed the public option and created a bill close to Dole-Chafee and Romneycare. Mitch McConnell met w/ the caucus before Obama was sworn in and came up w/ the strategy of no. That is the dems fault how?

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Sadly, both parties have been guilty of this type of unsavory partisanship in the past. But I’ve never seen it this bad. There are nearly 200 bills sitting in the Senate, passed with bipartisan support in the House, which Senate Republicans refuse to allow to go to debate. Being an elected official today is more about trying to strong arm the party the involved, do whatever dirty deeds it would take to get re-elected, ect., than it is about finding solutions together for this country’s many problems.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Sorry, I meant to strong arm the party in power.

  • http://fourlegsrgood.wordpress.com fourlegsgood

    I’ll be shocked if it doesn’t turn into a big brou-ha-ha.

    The republicans will continue to obstruct every way they can, regardless of the nominee’s qualifications.

blog comments powered by Disqus