Zeke Emanuel, Obama's Health Care Alchemist

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Zeke Emanuel, Obama's Health Care Alchemist stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

04/19/09 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Zeke

Ezekiel Emanuel has a fear of failure. Months into the administration, the prominent bioethicist and brother of chief of staff, Rahm, has emerged as an important player in President Barack Obama's efforts at overhauling health care. But with the elevated role has come an elevated responsibility. And as the White House pushes for the largest expansion of coverage in well over two decades, the eldest of the Emanuel brothers refuses to get ahead of reality.

"My biggest fear is that we fail," said Emanuel in an interview with the Huffington Post. "You said, 'failure, obviously, is not an option.' But it is not clear that it is obvious. Stuart Altman, who many people consider the dean of health policy up at Brandeis University, he has this rule -- the rule of second best. You poll people and everyone is for health care reform, whether it is mandate or single payer. But everyone has a second best, and that is to do nothing. Well, I think this time it is different. Doing nothing, keeping the status quo, is not the second best. It is the biggest disaster that we can do."

This is not, necessarily, a form of expectations-setting superstition. Emanuel, who came to the administration with the title Special Advisor for Health Policy, knows that overhauling America's health care system has been an elusive goal of administrations dating back to Franklin Roosevelt. His task, while not his solely, is to find success where others have failed.

"Is reform going to be difficult? Is it going to be painful? Look, any change inherently is painful," he said. "Is keeping the current system painful? It is even more painful."

While not a student of politics like his brother, "Zeke" is acutely aware of the lessons from past health care reform efforts. Too much secrecy, a la Hillary Clinton's attempt in the early 90s, creates skepticism; too much orthodoxy, like the efforts in the 50s and 70s, gins up infighting and opposition. As such, he refuses to delve into the details of the administration's preferred policy, emphasizing instead how organic the process truly is.

Asked, for instance, whether the president is contemplating a public insurance plan -- which would provide a cheaper option for coverage, but could, as critics say, significantly hamper private insurers -- he replies: "I'm not talking about it." Pointing at the tape recorder on the desk, he adds, "You get paid for screwing me and I don't get paid for screwing myself."

In a similar vein, he only touches from afar issues like mandates requiring people to buy coverage, or removing tax exemptions for employer-based health insurance. "Look, that is a very complicated policy issue," he says of the latter. "I think the budget was very clear about not taking anything off the table."

But he is not just playing coy. In many ways, Emanuel is trying to perform "health care alchemy." He views reform and the system itself as a web of interconnected parts: make one policy move and it effects countless others.

Story continues below

"There are just a huge number of choices," he said. "And as you go down, further and further, there are multiple choices that you have to make. And so the permutations of that become enormous. To pull out one thing and say 'tell me about that' is very artificial."

And yet, for as open a process as Obama has pursued, there are veterans of the health care reform movements who worry the president is already pointed in the wrong direction. Professor Altman, who Emanuel cited as the "dean of health policy," said he is concerned that the White House is focused on the wrong challenge, giving preference to cost containment over expanding coverage.

"I have known Zeke for a long time and I have tremendous respect for him," said Altman. "He is a thoughtful and decent guy... And his boss, [OMB director] Peter Orszag is a very smart guy. And I'm very supportive of what they are trying to do with this collaborative process. I'm just giving you the benefit of 40 years... Their emphasis to make health care cost reform the number one issue is going to doom health care reform. Because that is what all the forces will line up against."

On this front, however, the White House position seems bolstered by public opinion. A CNN poll released on Thursday found 82 percent of Americans satisfied with the quality of their health care, but 77 percent dissatisfied with the cost of health care in the country.

Moreover the administration has, as Emanuel notes, "already done a lot of things" to facilitate long-term savings. The stimulus bill passed this February included unprecedented investments in health IT, comparative effectiveness research, prevention and community health centers. The next fight will be over the administration's budget proposal, which contains $633.8 billion over the next ten years for health care.

The key is to encourage or spur short-term sacrifice (Emanuel uses the term "contributions" -- "it sounds softer") in exchange for long-term benefits. Stepping into a new room in his no-frills office in the Old Executive Office Building, he hand-draws what's known as a 'potential energy barrier graph.' Starting in the middle of the vertical axis, his pen climbs an upwards slope; it hits a peak, then falls back down, well below the height of where it started. His inner chemist is coming out. Short-term investments (climbing the hill) lead to lower costs (finding the lower plateau).

"We ask businesses to invest now in their research and product development for better and higher profits in years from now," he says. "We need to do the same thing in the health care system. We need to invest today, whether it is health IT, comparative effectiveness, changing the incentive structure. The return is going to come in a few years. That is really at the heart of the notion of health care reform."

And so it is that Emanuel and the White House are attempting to reorganize the delivery and reimbursement systems of health care, changing what the types of procedures doctors rely on, making people more aware of disease prevention, encouraging insurance companies to expand coverage, and so on. It is a process rife with sensitivities, trickeries and, of course, the potential for failure. It is not, he insists, impossible.

"It is a complicated process and we have to try and make the choices clear and give people good reasons for making them," Emanuel explains. "I don't think that's an impossible task and thankfully we have one of the great communicators, Barack Obama, at the helm of this ship of state."

Ezekiel Emanuel has a fear of failure. Months into the administration, the prominent bioethicist and brother of chief of staff, Rahm, has emerged as an important player in President Barack Obama's eff...
Ezekiel Emanuel has a fear of failure. Months into the administration, the prominent bioethicist and brother of chief of staff, Rahm, has emerged as an important player in President Barack Obama's eff...
Loading...
 
 
Comments
96
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 (3 pages total)
- newyorkid I'm a Fan of newyorkid 40 fans permalink
photo

Did he also work for the lsraeli army like Rahm?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 PM on 03/19/2009
- fbr79 I'm a Fan of fbr79 12 fans permalink
photo

I knew someone would come up with this line of comment, good job for keeping things predictable at HP.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:13 PM on 03/19/2009

Now the cockroaches are starting to crawl out. NY is famous for them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 03/19/2009
- pigeonca I'm a Fan of pigeonca 4 fans permalink

The only way health care reform can possibly work is if EVERYONE has it - whether by mandate to self-pay and/or by government subsidy paid for by taxes. We all know that 20-somethings won't buy insurance unless they have loads of money - and that for 50-somethings with pre-existing conditions, insurance is unaffordable unless your employer covers you. The pool has to be balanced, with some people going for an annual checkup and nothing else, and others seeing the doctor every week. The 20 year olds will be 50 some day, but they don't believe that they will.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 PM on 03/19/2009
- schatsie I'm a Fan of schatsie 90 fans permalink

Oh they can suck it right out of the working stiff's pocket before it hits the bank...just like they get our income taxes, but the rich and famous have SCAMS and OFFSHORE accounts....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 03/19/2009
- lj9283 I'm a Fan of lj9283 67 fans permalink
photo

Here's some interesting reading on the Economics of "Health Care for America", developed for the Economic Policy Institute by Yale University Political Science Prof. Jacob Hacker, which calls for employers, individuals and the federal government to share responsibility for the health coverage of all U.S. residents. The coverage includes mental health care and prescription drugs.

Summary:

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/hcfa/lewin-summary.pdf

Cost Impact Analysis For The“Health Care For America” Proposal:

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/hcfa/lewin.pdf

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 PM on 03/19/2009
photo

Cost impact (benefit) analysis should NEVER EVER be used to determine health care, in this country or anywhere else. The moment we begin to judge whether something, a product or service is worth the cost, someone, usually the less fortunate (in this case the critically ill and disabled) get screwed in the pursuit of the best medicine at the lowest cost.

So long as people care more about their pocketbooks than they do about their or their family's health (some of whom are likely to be critically ill or disabled) someone will get screwed

How does one put a price on Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ALL??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:52 PM on 03/19/2009
- frantaylor I'm a Fan of frantaylor 22 fans permalink

What is the point of your argument? Are you sticking up for the current system?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 03/19/2009
- lj9283 I'm a Fan of lj9283 67 fans permalink
photo

Obviously you have not bothered to read the documents.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 PM on 03/19/2009
- DocTwain I'm a Fan of DocTwain 114 fans permalink
photo

This is a regressive approach. It's got a good idea, an open-enrollment national health insurance program in competition with private insurers--but it doesn't require the government plan to offer comprehensive coverage--all medically necessary care. The article says employees could still cover employees through private insurers, "as long as the costs and
benefits were comparable or better."

But you can't get coverage "better" than comprehensive coverage.
And no private insurer can provide comprehensive coverage at equal or lower cost. That's because of administrative costs. For every buck a private insurer gets in premiums, it pockets on average 20 cents in overhead, marketing, excess executive remuneration, and profit. Only 80 cents buy actual care. But Medicare consumes only 3 cents--97 cents buy actual health care.

So it's literally impossible for a private to compete with a government insurer, unless the system is deliberately fixed so government coverage is inferior. That would create an unjust, two-tiered system in which millions would have underfunded government insurance, while the wealthy would get superior coverage through employers.

Even worse, this plan proposes that ordinary workers pay too much out of pocket. $5000 a year? That's a disincentive to get needed care, and will drive up systemic costs. Out-of-pocket costs should be little or nothing--the system should be funded through taxes.

We need single payer, HR 676:
http://www.pnhp.org

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 PM on 03/19/2009
photo

Whether it be multiple low-cost, non-profit insurers or a single-payer system, the healthcare insurance industry's grip on US healthcare must be broken; they are obsolete and serve only to foul the entire system. Any system variation that gives US healthcare insurers a role will end up with a GOP mole disguised as a supportive participant, merely waiting until the political tide has turned and all populist gains can be rescinded or, at the very least, negatively impacted for the sake of corporate profits.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 PM on 03/19/2009
- Javani I'm a Fan of Javani 6 fans permalink

"the healthcare insurance industry's grip on US healthcare must be broken;"

Everything implicit in this article indicate the grip is tighter than ever.

And complaining about Hillary's secrecy? What a laugher given his own.

It smells like Obama is for "mandate" --the insurance companies favorite.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 PM on 03/19/2009
photo

Yet again, the minority is getting screwed.

I agree with Professor Altman. Expanding coverage should be at least as equal a consideration as reducing costs

Even those people who HAVE health insurance, some of it very good, are being denied the best, state of the art high tech medicine and technology, in the attempt to control prices, And even the best state of the art medicine and technology are not even being provided, forcing us to be dependent on substandard drugs that end up doing more harm than good when someone is trying to metabolize all the additives, fillers and preservative found in current pharmaceuticals.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 03/19/2009
- Jaybot I'm a Fan of Jaybot 11 fans permalink

Alchemy is about right, flash and smoke, but no substance. There will be no real reform, the Senate Democrats (you know who I mean) will sabotage anything substantive. The real kicker? If they fail this time, a second time, they wont get another chance.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 PM on 03/19/2009

So the big news is what? 'We're working on it'?

Very informative.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 03/19/2009
photo

I can't believe that 82% of "Americans" are satisfied with their current health care. 42 million have none to be satisfied about. In Syracuse, NY, Syracuse University Hospital stopped treating cancer patients because their insurer went bankrupt. Anyone who thought they had good insurance found out they were without it. In Texas, 56% of births are paid for by Medicare. What was the count for people recently unemployed? 650,000? These people no longer have affordable health care even with help from the stimulus bill. Here in Texas, Perry takes 175 million for highway construction but won't accept a penny to help those who are unemployed. I don't think these Texans are happy with their health insurance. Ask CNN to document their poll results.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 PM on 03/19/2009

No! It's not rocket science, or even very complicated. We know where the money goes now. We know what every other society like ours does in the world, and what they pay both in aggregate and in detail. We know why our current system is bad, and how it has become as bad as it is. So anyone who has paid any attention at all knows what sort of system we should be trying to build. The problem is figuring out how to get from where we are to where we need to be. What we have to get over is the misplaced power our system's current beneficiaries have over the outcome of our current deliberations. That is where political capital comes in - we elected Obama by an overwhelming majority precisely to use it for that purpose. Did we misplace our trust?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 03/19/2009
- jdw1981 I'm a Fan of jdw1981 44 fans permalink
photo

We can't have Howard Dean, even though he engineered the 50-State strategy that was Obama's road to victory. Because he DARED to criticize the Democrats when they were giving Bush everything he wanted.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 03/19/2009
- PSM42 I'm a Fan of PSM42 20 fans permalink
photo

Not just one rambo 1srael1-firster. But two of them.

Great.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 03/19/2009
photo

It's going to be one uphill battle. The privatized medical care group in the US has for years been trying to make inroads to Canada. In "right-wing" Alberta, they've actually had some sucess in establishing "private clinics". Were constantly being lectured by the American private medical group that socialized medicine is a disaster. Most of the negative propoganda about Canadian health care comes from American medical groups.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:14 PM on 03/19/2009
photo

It's all smoke and mirrors.

We instituted SOCIALIZED Medicine when we created MediCare. We have just allowed that program and our government to discriminate against the majority of citizens.

Now we have Socialized the Health care further by including our children.

Why not make health care truly equitable and fair for all citizens and go all of the way in integrity to prevent the bankruptcy's and government/corporate theft of our citizens wealth as they die?

It's because of Racism clearly, in my opinion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 03/19/2009
- DocTwain I'm a Fan of DocTwain 114 fans permalink
photo

Where do you get all this "Racism" stuff? That's a red herring--it's got nothing to do with it. To wit, Medicare covers all of the elderly, including minorities.

But Medicare is NOT "socialized medicine."
Socialized medicine is when government is the PROVIDER of health care--when it owns the hospitals and the doctors are government employees--like in the VA.
Medicare is a government INSURANCE program.
I agree with you that we should have universal, comprehensive coverage through a national health insurance program.
You should look into single payer, HR 676, sponsored by Representative John Conyers of Michigan: http://www.pnhp.org/publications/united_states_national_health_care_act_hr_676.php

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:05 PM on 03/19/2009

Why not allow private care for people who can afford it and want to "jump the line" by paying for separate policies and care? That would take away one of the opposition talking points--about lack of choice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 PM on 03/19/2009
photo

I love that idea, and other health professionals would love the opportunity too to actually compete and not be relegated to capped reimbursement, are you kidding?

Physicians could choose NOT to work for the National Health as they do in England and be entrepreneurs and mavericks again finding their audience and niche populations and providing exactly the same level and quality of care for higher fees.

Right On!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:43 PM on 03/19/2009
photo

Most Canadians are opposed to a two-tier health care system. Canada has allowed private clinics "for pay", when it comes to elective surgery.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 PM on 03/19/2009
photo

Because being forced to select an option and remain on that option for the rest of one's life is not a choice. And people WILL be forced to make a choice when they balance out which is more important, lower cost or dignity and self respect. Many disabled people I know are likely to choose the higher priced private plan that will give them their dignity and self respect after having it been stripped away from them by being in "the system' until/unless they were adopted out to real loving families who put love, dignity and self respect above their pocket books and are willing to pay whatever price is neccessary to chase the American dream of Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness that we are all "supposed to be" given an equal chance to.

And once the insurance companies realize they have a captive audience, they have the ability to screw over their clients, gouging them for every penny, especially now that there are higher prices because there are less people on any of the individual plans, and the cost of medicine and technology remains the same

then of course yuo have the whole "separate but equal" issue, and that has already been deemed unconstitutional discrimination

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 03/19/2009

I thought Obama appointed Sibelius.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:14 PM on 03/19/2009
- EHarold I'm a Fan of EHarold 11 fans permalink

How about you put single payer healthcare advocates at the front of the list when doing a health care summit? I know too many people who can't afford a dentist ,doctor .. glasses etc due to no health care.. And implementing any program that doesn't pay for your healthcare 100% won't work when the majority are working poor.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 03/19/2009
photo

that system works really well if the only thing you have to worry about is getting glasses or dealing with a broken arm or a stubbed toe, or even a long term condition like heart disease that develops after the person has been a working active vital productive member of society.

But a single payer system will inevitably lead to a much stricter cost/benefit analysis program than is even being used now, and under such a program, the disabled who spend their entire lives enduring surgeries, medications and other treatments will be short shifted because their critical care needs are too expensive, and will raise the cost of the program for those who only worry about minor injuries and management.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 PM on 03/19/2009
- DocTwain I'm a Fan of DocTwain 114 fans permalink
photo

Placebo, I get that you're worried about people with disabilities, but I don't understand why you think a single-payer system wouldn't treat them _better_ than they are currently.

HR 676 explicitly provides _all medically necessary care_. Everything.

Where the cost/benefit analysis comes in is with treatments that don't actually work.
Researchers would find out what works and what doesn't, and doctors would be prevented from wasting resources on treatments that are ineffectual.

If someone is disabled and needs multiple procedures to deal with their condition, so long as those procedures are actually effective, instead of just a waste of money, they'll be paid for.

Moreover, HR 676 has minimal out-of-pocket costs. Money is a problem for many disabled people. Having no out-of-pocket costs can make a big difference in living with a disability.

I don't think discrimination against the disabled is part of anybody's health care reform plan. The discrimination that we have to worry about is income-based discrimination and the creation of a two-tiered system.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 PM on 03/19/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect