This JSOnline article notes that many of the country’s “best-known” health economists sent a letter to President Obama supporting the idea of an independent panel of physicians and experts determining what Medicare should pay for medical services.  Aside from pointing out that “best-known” differs from “well-known” — how many Americans have heard of even one of the signers (perhaps David Cutler)? — I was struck by the following line:

To achieve the desired reduction in expenditures and improvements in the quality of care, safeguards will be needed to ensure that the group is independent of direct political control and that its recommendations are implemented fully.

Is anyone confident that the “safeguards” will be sufficient to prevent political influence?   White House OMB Director Peter Orszag believes so:

The Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) would be an independent, non-partisan body of doctors and other health experts, appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serving for five-year terms. The IMAC would issue recommendations as long as their implementation would not result in any increase in the aggregate level of net expenditures under the Medicare program; and either would improve the quality of medical care received by the program’s beneficiaries or improve Medicare’s efficiency.

Apparently, Mr. Orszag would have us believe that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Supreme Court nominations (just to name a few) are free of political and special interest influence.  Rather than having government exert more control over something — albeit with high-minded and independent folks making key decisions — isn’t the best way to free it from political influence to remove it (as much as possible) from the political sphere?