Jonathan Gruber Failed to Disclose His $392,600 Contracts with HHS

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/07/jonathan-grubers-rent-a-scholarship/

By: emptywheel Thursday January 7, 2010 8:35 pm


"MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber has been the go-to source that all the health care bill apologists point to to defend otherwise dubious arguments. But he has consistently failed to disclose that he has had a sole-source contract with the Department of Health and Human Services since June 19, 2009 to consult on the “President’s health reform proposal.”

...But none of the references to Gruber I’ve seen have revealed that Gruber has a $297,600 contract with HHS to produce,

a technical memorandum on the estimated changes in health insurance coverage and associated costs and impacts to the government under alternative specifications of health system reform. The requirement includes developing estimates of various health reform proposals on health insurance coverage and cost. The alternative specifications to be considered will be derived from the President’s health reform proposal.

(h/t Mote Dai)

The President’s health reform proposal? But I thought this was the Senate’s health reform proposal?!?!? (wink!)"

http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/08/late-night-color-me-gruber/

"Needless to say, I have been reading a lot about MIT “health economist” and (now it can be revealed!) government contractor Jonathan Gruber (maybe you have, too), and I must tell you, this one really disappoints me.

...So, this Gruber scandal disappoints. Let me focus on one example.

Remember, back in November, when everyone inside the Beltway was all a-twitter (in both senses of the phrase) about how Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, was making practically every White House staffer read an Atlantic article by Ron Brownstein? That piece, touting what FDL’s own Jon Walker called “free market economagic,” relied heavily on the work of Jonathan Gruber—then billed as “a leading health economist at MIT,” now well-understood to be a super-remunerated contractor in the employ of several parts of the Obama Administration.


...Along with Rahm letting everybody know he was letting everybody know, OMB Director Peter Orszag got on the White House blog to push the Brownstein article and an op-ed that Orszag penned for the Washington Post that touted a letter he co-signed with Jonathan Gruber. Orszag and Gruber go back a ways–years earlier, Orszag worked with Gruber to co-write at least two papers for a Boston College think tank called the Center for Retirement Research.

Rahm didn’t leak that Gruber worked for the administration. Gruber didn’t tell Brownstein that he worked for the administration. Orszag doesn’t disclose his prior relationship with Gruber..."

Seriously, we were up in arms here when it was revealed that Williams was on the take from the Bush admin. to push NCLB as an "independent expert". Why is this any different?

Not an independent expert. Completely different.

Universities hardly ever disclose their federal funds when doing studies and reports, but I agree that they should.

Which may not put him in the reporter category but definitely puts him in the realm of journalism. Editorials are expected to disclose conflicts of interest too.

One op-ed way back in July. Yes Gruber was wrong, but to compare it to Williams, more proof you'll say anything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/pageoneplus/corrections.html?scp=1&sq=gruber&st=cse

"Corrections
January 9, 2010
EDITORS' NOTE

On July 12, the Op-Ed page published an article by Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at M.I.T., on health insurance and taxation. On Friday, Professor Gruber confirmed reports that he is a paid consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services, and that his contract was in effect when he published his article. The article did not disclose this relationship to readers.

Like other writers for the Op-Ed page, Professor Gruber signed a contract that obligated him to tell editors of such a relationship. Had editors been aware of Professor Gruber’s government ties, the Op-Ed page would have insisted on disclosure or not published his article. (Go to Article)"

Is that not what I said? This is about one op-ed way back in July.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/8/822994/-Jonathan-Gruber-Didnt-Disclose-He-Was-Paid-$392,000-by-HHS!

"...Here are the links to articles written in the past eight months by Jonathan Gruber, in which he didn't disclose his being paid by the HHS agency within the Obama administration.

...Dr. Gruber, has been quoted extensively by the White House as an 'objective voice' on health care reform. He also has been cited five times on the White House blog..."

every step of the way. But much of what is in that blog is misrepresented and some incorrect. As ProSense posted, Gruber did disclose his pay many times, including to the Boston Globe. Also, he didn't produce numbers, the CBO did. Finally, he's a lifelong expert on the subject, not a propagandist like Armstrong Williams. To compare the two is like comparing Obama to Bush.

He told the NEJM because there would have been serious professional ramifications if he didn't. He was ethically obliged to tell the WaPo about it when he wrote editorials for them. He didn't. True, it was also their obligation to vet him and disclose any conflicts. And the CBO didn't produce the numbers, the JCT did, based largely on his models. In a way Gruber is worse than Armstrong Williams because he is a respected economist.

Please explain.

When his contract with the WH is not disclosed it lends to the perception. There's nothing inherently wrong with him working for the Obama administration and nothing wrong with him expressing his opinions. But you and I both know that if every op-ed he wrote and every statement he was quoted on came with the disclaimer that he was a paid consultant for the administration it would put those statements in a different light.

been several posts on this forum about his work, but I do not remember them citing his contract with the government.

But a university should disclose when they're getting money to do federal studies.

Maybe they need to become familiar with Gruber's views dating back to 1994.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2010/01/mit_economist_g.html

"...Gruber has not disclosed the details of his relationship with the administration in many instances and his failure to do so became the talk of Washington bloggers today, after news of his two contracts with the US Department of Health and Human Services first surfaced on the DailyKos and Politico. Gruber is being paid to analyze the costs and effects of various health reform proposals.

For example, he wrote an Op-Ed piece last month in the Washinton Post on a proposed tax on high-cost health insurance plans and was quoted in an online Atlantic Monthly article in November, and in neither case was his tie to the administration disclosed. Gruber, however, did disclose his paid work for the administration in a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine..."

He's an expert on the subject.

That's something he should disclose without being asked. It's disgusting that you are defending this. Predictable, though.

He was hired as an expert on the issue, not the other way around, as the distortions are trying to imply.

Gruber

.... here...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:sKQUHcyvVGgJ:econ-www.mit.edu/files/4845+joint+tax+committee+October+13th,+2009&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiUGj71aXXuIvDUlpoVM5mcFE8r2dYQi5--XjT8Yx_1ZShgh9T-D5mOn3V8daj35ZDlTqeCv7JUnLk5evMqapYIxGPQ_MXgeF4UabYf6ekrFqSrXp3fPCtu68xEPBSUDhMOWxaM&sig=AHIEtbRPBS9fsZIi6VFGrqO35yR3CSJGQA

.... using documents produced by the Joint Tax Committee which, last I checked, was not privately contracted by the admin (unless Obama has somehow managed to change the Constitution merging the executive and federal branches.)

http://www.jct.gov/

Anyone can read what he wrote using the reports he used and come to their own conclusions. It's a Saturday ... I encourage everyone to give it a go.

When Armstrong Williams promoted NCLB while under a paid contract to the Bush WH we were up in arms about it, though Williams also claimed that his views were consistent and independently researched.

This trumped-up accusation is plain silly ... and says much more about those trumpeting the faux outrage that it does about Gruber, or anyone else. They. Got. Nuthin'.

And from now on every time he's quoted it will be with that disclaimer. No biggie, right? :shrug:

We have some people in serious denial here.

They remind me of the Bush sheeple. They have stopped thinking.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and then from this comment, slinkerwink posted the diary linked at the bottom of this post.

There is mention of the DK diary on FDL, although some would rather attack FDL.



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/on-jonathan-gruber-and-disclosure.html

"...Gruber's nearly $400,000 contract with the Obama administration seems to have first been noticed by a citizen-journalist-blogger, Mote Date at Daily Kos..."



http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2010/1/7/131856/1847/73#c73

"The "fix was in" long ago for this tax (37+ / 0-)

The administration long ago knew it was going to rely on this tax in conjunction with healthcare reform. Jonathan Gruber was awarded a sole source contract for almost $300,000 for " technical assistance in evaluating options for national healthcare reform."

Gruber is a well known and very public advocate for the excise tax. The contract started in June and the expected period of performance was for 8 months. So he is still on this contract. I guess one question would be is if this sole source award included funds for "outreach" such as TV appearances or writing columns in support of his recommendations.

---Here is the description of the contract:

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), intends to negotiate with Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D. on a sole sources basis for technical assistance in evaluating options for national healthcare reform. The basis for restricting competition is the authority of 41 USC 253(c)(1) 106-1(b) because there is only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy DHHS requirements. The anticipated contract period will be eight months.

ASPE requires a technical memorandum on the estimated changes in health insurance coverage and associated costs and impacts to the government under alternative specifications of health system reform. The requirement includes developing estimates of various health reform proposals on health insurance coverage and cost. The alternative specifications to be considered will be derived from the President’s health reform proposal. This project is a continuation of work that Dr. Gruber is currnetly providing for ASPE..."



UPDATE: Jonathan Gruber Didn't Disclose He Was Paid $392,000 by HHS! Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 08:33:09 AM PST

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/8/822994/-Jonathan-Gruber-Didnt-Disclose-He-Was-Paid-$392,000-by-HHS!

There goes another one of your favorite Cut & Paste sources for spamming DU with Pro-Health Insurance Industry propaganda.

Did you know he was being paid (well paid!) by the White House?
or are you as surprised as everybody else?

Because that's what reporters are going to be doing from now on. When you cut and paste things from this "renowned expert" be sure to cut and paste the disclaimer as well. It'll just save the rest of us the trouble of having to do it.

are people who do the same thing here all the time. The disregard for the truth, for honest and clear dealings is getting to be tiresome. Hard to deal with an administration that does this kind of thing while pointing fingers at others for being 'sinners' unworthy of basic human rights. The hypocrisy just gets to me.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/8/822994/-Jonathan-Gruber-Didnt-Disclose-He-Was-Paid-$392,000-by-HHS!

"...Dr. Gruber, has been quoted extensively by the White House as an 'objective voice' on health care reform. He also has been cited five times on the White House blog..."


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/29/mit-economist-confirms-senate-health-reform-bill-reduces-costs-and-improves-coverage

The White House Blog

MIT Economist Confirms Senate Health Reform Bill Reduces Costs and Improves Coverage

Posted by Nancy-Ann DeParle on November 29, 2009 at 03:14 PM EST

"Jonathan Gruber, PhD, a MIT Economist who has been closely following the health insurance reform process, issued a compelling new report based on data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. As the Politico wrote, "The report concludes that under the Senate’s health-reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will pay less than they do for today's typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs." Here are some key points:

Nancy-Ann DeParle is Director of the White House Office of Health Reform

Yeah, I'll say he has. :wow:

thanks.

:)

FDL's dramatic write-up is funny - "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber has been the go-to source that all the health care bill apologists point to to defend otherwise dubious arguments..."

Cue ominous-sounding music: "Da da da daaaaaaaaa...."

Gruber as an objective voice as noted below. Go to the links and read what is said, no mention of payment for his analysis, which may or may not be correct.

Do you think the WH should disclose the fact that he was being paid?

We would never buy this stuff from the Republicans and we should not from our own Party, we would never accept mandating the purchase of private insurance if it was prposed by the Repubs. But for reason it is all OK now.

:(

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/8/822994/-Jonathan-Gruber-Didnt-Disclose-He-Was-Paid-$392,000-by-HHS!

"...Here are the links to articles written in the past eight months by Jonathan Gruber, in which he didn't disclose his being paid by the HHS agency within the Obama administration....


"Dr. Gruber, has been quoted extensively by the White House as an 'objective voice' on health care reform. He also has been cited five times on the White House blog."

No biggie, right? I mean he's such an awesome independent expert and everything that a mere little truthful statement about him being a paid adviser to the Obama admin. accompanying every quote of his won't affect his credibility in the eyes of the public at all. That's all that's probably going to happen, jefferson. No one's going to be fired and Gruber will continue to be cited by his friend Peter Orszag. Only this time when reporters quote it there will be a disclaimer.

So what is there for you to be upset about?

refer to his articles on the WH site.

:shrug:

That's just straight up lying by the administration. I do not like be lied to, no matter which party is doing it. And for people to sit here and act like it's nothing is astonishing.

object now.

When "they" do it, it is clearly wrong, even criminal.
:rofl:

Why am I not surprised! We got the best government that the corporations can buy.