US CMS Administrator declines to release former organization funding sources

US Senator Chuck Grassley (Republican, Iowa), ranking member of the Committee on Finance, has now received a response to his July 29 letter to the new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator, Donald Berwick, requesting information about funding of his former organization, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Dr Berwick declined to release key funding information, said Sen Grassley, who made the following comment.

'For months, I've asked for donor information regarding the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. At one point, Dr Berwick promised to get me that information. It never happened. And now Dr Berwick says it never will, at least not on his watch. This was supposed to be the most transparent Administration ever. Instead, it's on track for the opposite. The CMS administrator has authority for the health coverage of more than 100 million Americans and manages a budget larger than the Pentagon's. At least a minimal amount of transparency is necessary for the head of such an influential agency.'

Sen Grassley continued: 'The reason for seeking key donor information by correspondence is Dr Berwick was recess-appointed without even a committee hearing, which would have looked at his organization's funding and identified possible conflicts of interest in his control of the nation's health care programs. Instead, there's a question mark over his organization's financial dealings. The public doesn't have enough information to be able to evaluate his capacity to serve without any conflicts. We don't know the key donors to IHI, which he founded and directed, so we don't know who funded his salary for many years or who funded his retirement plan. If a medical device maker or insurance company helped to fund IHI, will those companies get favorable treatment as Dr Berwick decides how to cut more than half a trillion dollars from Medicare, as required by health care reform? The Administration's answer is, trust us. But instead of being left to hope for the best, the taxpayers need verification. Without more information, the taxpayers are in the dark. Stonewalling on basic information is unacceptable. This isn't a good way to run the government.'