Health care plan bloated with bureaucracy

By Doug Carlson - Sep 9, 2009 - 2

Over the course of the last month away from Washington, members of Congress have received an earful from their constituents on the languishing health care reform proposal. Among concerns voiced in town hall meetings and district offices has been the House bill’s explicit authorization to fund abortion, the foremost objection of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. The public has also rightfully aired out concerns about the expanded role of the government in everything from coverage to end-of-life consultation.

Now we learn just how big this health care bureaucracy really could be. The House Republican Conference has identified 53 new government programs and offices that would be established under the House health care plan (H.R. 3200).

A sampling includes a telehealth advisory committee, an ombudsman for the “Public Health Insurance Option,” and a special inspector general for the health insurance exchange. Also among the web of 53 bureaucracies are the creation of a Commission and Center for Comparative Effective Research and a demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services.” The full list, chapter and verse, of newly created programs and offices follows:

  1. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 123, p. 30)
  2. Health Choices Administration (Section 141, p. 41)
  3. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 144, p. 47)
  4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 163, p. 57)
  5. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 164(d), p. 70)
  6. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 72)
  7. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Administration Commissioner (Section 206(b), p. 106)
  8. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 206©, p. 107)
  9. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 207, p. 109)
  10. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 208, p. 111)
  11. “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 221, p. 116)
  12. Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 221(d), p. 117)
  13. Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 222(b), p. 119)
  14. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191, p. 380)
  15. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 405)
  16. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 438)
  17. Accountable Care Organization pilot program (Section 1301, p. 443)
  18. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 462)
  19. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 468)
  20. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 502)
  21. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 505)
  22. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 519)
  23. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 546)
  24. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 548)
  25. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 559)
  26. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 565)
  27. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 607)
  28. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 674)
  29. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 716)
  30. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 780)
  31. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 824)
  32. “Identifiable office or program” within CMS to “provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles” (Section 1905, p. 852)
  33. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 859)
  34. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 870)
  35. Loan repayment program for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 873)
  36. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 882)
  37. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 887)
  38. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 898)
  39. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 900)
  40. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 904)
  41. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 917)
  42. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 920)
  43. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 932)
  44. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 941)
  45. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 947)
  46. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 950)
  47. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 951)
  48. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 955)
  49. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 965)
  50. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 972)
  51. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 993)
  52. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2521, p. 1001)
  53. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2531, p. 1008)

Precisely how involved and how intrusive these bureaucracies would become over time—and at what cost to the American people—remain to be seen. A detailed chart (176 KB PDF) of some of this massive web is enough to make one’s head spin. If history is a trustworthy guide, it cautions us that bigger, more expansive government has a propensity to create rather than solve problems.

There is a price to pay for all this government intrusion. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the bill will bloat the federal deficit by $239 billion. This comes with sobering news from the White House that the deficit will reach $1.5 trillion this year. And while a majority of the American people have expressed a desire for lowering health care costs, analysts find the plan on the table would actually increase costs to families and individuals.

To help sound the alarm on the health care plan, ERLC President Dr. Richard Land, who hosts the weekly, caller driven Richard Land Live! radio program, will join other Salem Radio Network talk show hosts today in Washington to deliver to Capitol Hill a petition—now more than 1.2 million signatures strong—calling for health care reform that ensures choice, access, fairness, and responsibility.

At one-sixth of the U.S. economy, health care reform should not be about more government and more abortions. If you agree, please sign the Free Our Health Care Now petition and tell your congressman and senators to oppose any health care bill that expands the government’s role in health care and does not explicitly exclude abortion coverage.

Download the ERLC’s analysis of the House health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) here (280 KB PDF). Download the House health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) in its entirety here (1.8 MB PDF).

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship, Healthcare, Legislation

comments

1 On Sep 9th, 2009, at 11:37am, vince eccles wrote:

I have lived in Germany under a government plan.  Wonderful.  You are just ideologically paranoid.

2 On Sep 10th, 2009, at 11:03pm, John wrote:

I have seen Brazil’s government plan. Germany got lucky.

Comments are closed. Please use our contact form if you have any thoughts or questions.