Jeanne Lambrew guides our future
Health Highlights
The Washington Post
December 11, 2008
Jeanne Lambrew, who helped Daschle write the book about health care reform, will serve as deputy director of the new White House health policy office. Heads of health advocacy groups have described Lambrew as one of Daschle’s most trusted advisers on health issues. She will oversee planning efforts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/11/AR2008121101979.html
And…
Hearing on Economic Recovery, Job Creation and Investment In America
Statement of Jeanne Lambrew, Ph.D., Associate Professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Action Fund, Austin, Texas
Committee on Ways and Means
October 29,2008
As I will explain, the short-run economic crisis has health policy causes and effects—and arguably the most serious long-run economic challenge is our broken health care system. I’ll conclude with suggestions on policies to address both sets of problems.
A wide range of visions and detailed plans have been developed to fix the broken health system. There is a general consensus on the need to improve quality, efficiency, and access through tools such as better managing chronic disease, promoting prevention, investing in and using comparative effectiveness research, and providing assistance to those with low-income or high-risk. There is less agreement on where, when, and how aggressively to insure more Americans, as can be seen in the presidential candidates’ plans. But rather than discussing these ideas in depth, I will end by making two points on approaches to reform.
The first is the importance of addressing the coverage and cost problems simultaneously. Coverage will continue to erode, even with expansions, if the cost of coverage continues its rapid increase.
Second, solutions should be bold but pragmatic. Important changes to the health system are needed to improve its performance. Realigning payments toward quality and coverage toward prevention, for example, will be necessary but difficult. Increasing participation in health insurance will take resources and regulation. At the same time, changes that are risky or uncertain should be avoided. Specifically, the employer-based health insurance system has its flaws, but remains the primary and trusted source of coverage for most Americans. Public programs like Medicaid and SCHIP are mainstays in the safety net that cannot be easily replaced. And Medicare should be improved but not undermined through arbitrary caps or deep cuts.
No doubt, enacting health reform in the context of economic reform will be hard. But it is not as hard as turning a blind eye while our nation’s health and economic prospects fade due to problems that may be prevented by policy.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=7466
And…
The Specter of Socialized Medicine: What Is It and Is It Invading Our Country?
By Marla Bizzle, Denise Fraga, Laurie Seremetis, Jeanne Lambrew
Center for American Progress
May 14, 2008
We’ve stood by and watched the entire industrialized world turn to varying forms of government-supported health care systems for all their citizens. But, in part because of fears about socialized medicine, similar policy changes have been blocked here. What exactly is socialized medicine, and why is it slander in the current health reform debate?
The fact is that socialized medicine in its purest form is difficult to come by in the real world. Some sort of private entity operates or is allowed to operate within almost every health system. These private-entity roles mean that many systems are better classified as single-payer and universal health care systems, which differ from socialized medicine.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/socialized_medicine.html
Comment:
By Don McCanne, MD
To understand the approach to reform that will be supported by President Barack Obama and HHS Secretary Tom Daschle, you need only understand the views of Jeanne Lambrew. Those who have read Sen. Daschle’s “Critical” already have an impression of her views since she was the policy consultant for his book. It is now official that, as deputy director of the new White House health policy office, she will oversee planning efforts for the Obama/Daschle reform program.
Far too much has already been written about the Clintons’ failed attempt at reform. But Jeanne Lambrew was there, and Senators Kennedy, Daschle and Baucus were on the scene. Whatever other lessons were learned, those involved both then and now cannot be dissuaded from their belief that reform, though bold, must also be pragmatic.
One definition of pragmatic provided by the American Heritage Dictionary is “relating to or being the study of cause and effect in historical or political events with emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from them.”
Jeanne Lambrew has learned that our nation’s health and economic problems can “be prevented by policy.” She has also learned that the specter of socialized medicine should no longer be allowed to block comprehensive reform in the United States.
If pragmatism represents the practical lessons learned, then doesn’t it seem that the pragmatic approach to health reform should represent the most effective and efficient policies, and that we should not be timid in our efforts merely because someone fears that they may hear the term, socialized medicine? Aren’t these the lessons we learned?
Yet Jeanne Lambrew insists on continuing with and expanding our current inefficient, fragmented multi-payer system that can never achieve our goals of equitable, high-quality, comprehensive care for absolutely everyone. She is a brilliant individual who is more informed than most on the policy issues. She rejects the nonsense about the socialized medicine bogeyman. So why does she and the other Washington veterans continue to begin from a position that single payer is not feasible?
The feasibility issue lies within the Senate, with Senator Chuck Grassley as the proxy. He certainly recognizes the problems. He understands the rationale of single payer. He doesn’t accept the disastrous status quo. But feasibility? Is he really going to insist that we abandon important policy choices that would actually work?
You don’t need to answer that. Just look for higher costs, more mediocrity, continued inequity, and adoption of highly flawed, wish-they-would-work policies.