Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

An Interview With Jim Cooper

cooper.jpgIn recent weeks, we've talked about the administration's idea for controlling health-care costs by allowing the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to make Medicare reforms without requiring congressional approval. It's a big, bold idea, that first found expression in legislation from Sen. Jay Rockefeller. Late last week, Rep. Jim Cooper introduced a version of Rockefeller's bill in the House. We spoke about the idea this morning, and Cooper's argument is really worth a read. It's not just an argument for his legislation. It's an argument against a broken Congress that's too riddled with special interests and parochial cowardice to perform its basic functions. Many of his colleagues, he argues, don't even know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Should they really be in charge of the two programs?

What follows is a lightly edited transcript of our chat. -- Ezra.

You've introduced the companion plan to Senator Jay Rockefeller's MedPAC reform act, which would make MedPAC an executive branch agency and, following a Federal Reserve model, allow it to implement its proposed Medicare reforms without coming to Congress for a vote. Why?

We need to take politics out of health care. Congress will cave to pretty much any special interest on the subject. Meanwhile, we're facing a financial calamity in the growth of Medicare and Medicaid. The financial safety of America is at risk.

I think the MedPAC people do a great job. I've loved their reports for years. But Congress routinely ignores their findings. I think it's very appropriate to elevate their standing.

Now, this is an opening legislative bid. And Congress would retain ultimate control. But it would relieve Congress of a lot of technical responsibilities. By getting expert help and consumer-friendly help, we can improve the situation. A recent MedPAC initiative was to require physicians to report industry relationships. That's a necessary step. But Congress will never do it on its own. All it takes is a doctor complaint from back home and Congress backs off.

You said Congress would retain ultimate control. How?

We could abolish MedPAC entirely. If Congress wanted to intervene with the Federal Reserve, well, we created the Federal Reserve. We could uncreate it. But would you want Congress regulating the money supply? We'd have drowned in inflation, or gone bankrupt, decades ago.

Why take it from Congress at all? Don't seniors and other constituent groups deserve to have their representatives making these decisions. Isn't that the point of our political system?

You remember, a few years ago, how Congress didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shi'a? Ask folks about the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, you'd be surprised.

Do your colleagues confuse them?

Routinely. for example, a lot of my rural friends will say we can't recruit doctors to rural areas because Medicare pays too little. But Medicare pays pretty much market rate. Medicaid pays much less than that. So I'll say don't you mean Medicaid? Then they'll say that they're not on the Health Committee. But these are the most important programs in the country for their constituents!

I hope you understand my motivations, I'm for keeping these programs strong. I'm not for hurting them or eliminating them. My constituents rely on them. We need to keep them strong. Look at issues raised in [Atul Gawande's] New Yorker piece. Tell me how Congress is going to solve that problem. Probably right now the doctors in El Paso, Texas, are saying they want to be paid as much as the doctors in McAllen! And do you think the congressmen in McAllen are saying, "this is terrible, my doctors are being paid too much?" In Congress, it's all pork, all the time.

You know, Alain Enthoven once said that the perfect weapons program would be built in all 435 districts at once and it wouldn't work. Politically, that would be ideal. For national security, it would be a disastrous outcome.

What about the idea of making it a BRAC-style commission that could get a quick vote from Congress rather than a Federal Reserve-stlye agency?

Someone may offer an amendment to make it BRAC style. I could probably settle for that. But as an opening position, I think the Federal Reserve model makes the most sense.

You know, if you read this year's Medicare Trustees Report, on page 209, the dead last page, you'll see the actuary's letter. It says something like, "the preceding report assumes we will cut physician pay by 38 percent over the next few decades." Basically, this whole report is a lie. That's not cost savings. It's putting physicians out of business. We're not doing that. Congress has never, and probably will never, whack physicians by 38 percent. if you base the report on more realistic assumptions, though, Medicare is in trouble a lot earlier.

(Photo credit:

By Ezra Klein  |  June 10, 2009; 12:12 PM ET
Categories:  Health Reform , Interviews  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: My Head, Blogging
Next: Lunch Break: Brick!


I see on preview that HTML tags don't work. Ugh!!!!! Wow!! Is this parody? Because Cooper obviously lacks self-awareness. He's crying about special interests? Coming from a Blue Dog? One of the guys that helped kill Clinton health care reform.

Posted by: Calvin_Jones_and_the_13th_Apostle | June 10, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Calvin, you may have a point, but Cooper is right: MedPAC needs to be executive branch or subject to an up/down vote so we remove the politicization. What is happening now is not working, and this subject is too complex for Congress to handle without simplifying it into political self-interest (which will not help Medicare)

Posted by: scott1959 | June 10, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

My worry about this toughened up MedPAC is that, the reform package as I read it, is going to need a guiding committee with powers enumerated in many different fields and across all states. Right now raising insurance rates is often regulated at the state level by Dept/Div's of Insurance, the reform committee might be called upon to make fast changes (a la federal reserve) to those rates, and I'm not convinced a MedPAC rework will give them that power. Same with the blending of individual and small group markets, there are lots of state-level rules, and, again, the new committee needs to be empowered to nimbly address any problems with that merger. And what about the power to make fast-changes to the tax code if needed?

Really, reform has lots of moving parts and the MedPAC retool should build in some release valves and not be wholly about setting rates for services.

Posted by: ThomasEN | June 10, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

But the trouble is that Cooper like most people simply believe in myths. Recently I went to a lecture by Uwe Reinhardt. He computed (in constant dollars) how much the per capita GDP would be in 40 years AFTER paying for Medicare. He assumed Medicare would grow faster than it has been. He assumed the GDP would grow more slowly than it has been. BUT still it turned out that we would have more money after paying for Medicare that we do now.

As he said, "Anyone who talks about the coming tsuami of medicare payments doen't know what they are talking about."

Posted by: lensch | June 10, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

lensch...interesting about Reinhardt. I trust him and what he has to say. I would love to see a link to his speech or slides if you have it.

It is possible to make the problem look less severe depending on what GDP and/or medical inflation assumptions you use. That is standard actuarial "magic".

We do know that the fund runs dry and goes negative in the next 15 years or so. Did Uwe dispute that or did he just feel that the pressure from going negative would not be that great relative to GDP?

Posted by: scott1959 | June 10, 2009 10:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company