employers often times they were more willing to give an increase in the health benefits instead of the wages because wages were taxed and health care was not. but now as a result of negotiating 75 years on that basis we have you do said had built up plans for employees and instead of taking money in the wages or in the benefit plan we have most of the health care plan their subject to the cadillac tax today even though it isn't in effect

until 2018. so now what i see is some players are running away for the health care obligations because now there is a 40% tax over the limits established of the aca. i have four really good employers that sam will be killed that they are trying to get out they are reorganizing and cutting companies and half so now i have the unions and those that were in favor of this bill asking you to repeal

it. i am a union member a former union president and i have the union saying repeal this. fortunately for me i voted against it. unlike some people i actually sat down and read it. i had a full staff whole big me with questions. -- helping me with questions. so people thought they would benefit. how do i fix this so previously good employers would continue to reduce that? because they all work 52 weeks a year they get laid

off, of bad weather, a broken time so they needed the format to provide for their families to get health insurance and now these employers are running away from their health care obligations because they see the tax coming down the road in 2018 and some are refusing the collective bargaining. because now they're told coach tuesday exchange. we're out of the health care business. how do we help them? >> i am not an expert on collective bargaining agreements. >> i guess. >> is the way that cadillac tax was designed there is no reason they cannot offer

that. >> for every dollar over the al lin and they pay $1.40. >> been no reason they cannot provide that under the cadillac tax gimmick they're competing with other employers on a bid if we are bidding on a construction project in and you have 49 and i have 150 mine includes $13 an hour for health care. but your bid is at $0 an hour. how do i went for every man i have to put $13 an hour but $0 on your is? i am out of business. >> there is a longstanding. >> i can afford that? for every man on that job by have to put $13 an hour on my did and you can put zero to send your people to the

exchange? because how does that work? >> there is a longstanding problem of employers to do or do not offer health care and other is a free rider assessment. >> it does not do it. >> recognize the -- the gentleman from utah. >> you also did work for the cbo? >> was on the cbo revisory council i don't remember when that started it was 2007. >> when did you stop working for the cbo? >> i was on the council through 2008? >> you mean 2011? is that correct?

>> were you on the advisory council? >> i do not know when they took me off. >> were you on the panel in 2010? >> i did not attend any meetings. >> to have communications? >> yes. >> you did not attend meetings but you did have communication? how many times since obama took office did you go to the white house? >> i don't recall exactly. >> board and 20? >> no. >> i believe it was. how many times you think it was? going to the white house is the significant event. >> primarily to the executive office building to meet with his staff. >> did you meet with the president? >> once during discussions. >> how long was that meeting

? >> meeting that lasted maybe an hour and a half with 20 people and i spoke five minutes. >> was mr. l mundorf there? >> yes. >> what was your capacity in the meeting? >> to talk about options for health care cost control. >> were you there as the cbo member? mac neither purpose as an expert. >> but some of the advice you. somebody paid you? >> nobody paid me to attend the meeting. >> we will explore that more. mr. gruber, will you provide copies of all the work products related to the healthcare.gov or any other health care reform proposals >> once again you can take that up with my counsel. >> no, no, no.

the council works for you under oath, please provide this information to this committee. >> once again taken up with my counsel. >> no no-no no mr. gruber, we are asking you. you were paid by the american tax paper - - people. will you or will you not provide that information to this committee? >> taken up with my counsel. >> mr. chairman we have to get to the bottom of this i think members of both sides should demand that those documents be part of the public record. what are you hiding? why want to give those to us where we not entitled? >> i am on an expert on the rules to the council is. >> why will you not give us those documents? >> i will not.

>> who owns those documents? he paid for them? >> i am not sure. >> you don't know? were you paid by the american taxpayer? democrats had a contract for micros simulation modeling. >> was there any work to do actually come up with documents and have discussions. >> the large number of discussions bennett we provide copies for all the state agency exchanges or any other health care reform group? >> once again take that a picasso. >> provide copies of communication are emails are copies of discussion was the federal or state officials related to the affordable care act exchanges our health care reform proposals? to read the committee can take that up with my counsel >> tidied address or a note for i am talking to you right now under oath.

paid by the american taxpayer will you or will you not provide that information? >> take that up with a council. why do you believe you are entitled not to give that? >> i don't know the rules. i am not a lawyer. >> deal have documents? >> do i own documents? >> you have documents? >> guess i have documents. >> you're not willing to give them to us? >> i have those in front of me. >> those related to the question that i just ask you mr. gruber. do not understand the question? >> i performed work for the federal government there is work product from the work i do not understand the rules and you can take it up with my counsel. >> this is terribly frustrating for gore hope we

get some cooperation novel side. >> and it does appear mr. gruber you have regressed in your ability you answer questions better than any politician sitting here today and i would contend your attorney is not giving an adequate representation at this time. this committee has the right to have information that has been requested. you have progressed from not talking off the cuff and making stupid statements to be entirely political to the point that you are hindering us to carry out our responses. >> mr. chairman? i would ask if we could consider a subpoena to compel the witness if he is not willing to do it on a

voluntary basis. >> i would recommend we take that up with the committee chair whose portrait hangs behind us. i would concur but i will not step into that place at this time. >> i now recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. gruber maybe this is of a good lesson for all academics the consequences to show one's superior knowledge that i have long felt watching this committee and operation to have the post over the mantle for the witness to answer at their own peril now we talk about subpoenas employers and documents how often did you

go to though white house? has a familiar refrain of how witnesses have been handled and the irs has been implanting device is into their brains. so you get the special treatment but you open the door for those remarks that you have apologized for. >> i did apologize for those excusable -- and excusable remarks. >> how often did you go to the mitt romney administration office when you were revising them romney administration on what was the model for obamacare? >> i don't recall, dozens of times. >> teeeight you ever meet with governor romney? >> just one. >> just like obama?

says that make you the architect of romney care in massachusetts? >> i was economic adviser just like it was to president obama. >> you have documents from those years that we could subpoena? >> withdraw the last part. >> to have documents from the romney period? >> i would think if we have a broad subpoena suggested by my friends that we encompass all of the romney documents that mr. gruber was involved because i want to see if this is a pattern that is not limited just to the president not just as the antecedent but romney care was the model. is that not true? >> i believe that is true. >> the tax consequences you

can be fined if you don't comply and that is through massachusetts. >> by the way of what happened to the uninsured percentage? did it go up? >> the rates of the uninsured fell by two-thirds or 3%. >> 3%? how many other states have that great? >> by far that is the lowest in the nation. >> lowest in the nation. also the fines were so relatively modest and that employers were tripping over each other to divest themselves of the employee plans to go to the state exchange. did that happen? >> no. employers and sponsored insurance rose by 10 percent

after birds. >> can you explain the interpretation of your statement that says the federal backstop will although it has been slow to rule that out because they want to squeeze the states but it is important to remember politically if you our state in dull set up an exchange then the citizens don't get the tax credit but proponents using these remarks to further the argument for those states did not set up the on exchange is that a correct interpretation of the lot and your statement? >> i don't believe it is correct interpretation of either. my remarks while porgy worded and much too glib and at the point i gave that statement in 2012 it was not clear how effective the federal exchanges would be or who would even we in the

white house. as a result they to be concerned would not be implemented. >> do you agree though law makes taxpayers in every state regard this is the federal government runs the exchange? >> to interpret the law, yes. >> mr. chairman i would like unanimous consent to enter a record of letter from cbo director and an article by a tom hartman -- and henry waxman. >> without objection. >> recognize myself for five minutes. its at least to me it is apparent today with what we have heard that americans now know that government

transparency under this administration simply means what you see is not what you get. ms. tavenner do you believe obamacare was crafted in a way to be transparent to the taxpayer? >> i certainly believe the of work i have been a part of the last five years has been transparent. >> that was obamacare crafted in a way to be transparent? >> i was not here during the crafting it. >> you say to is bertillon dash transparent with its implementation and? you have been here for that. >> we have tried to be transparent and provide documents including those we sent yesterday. we have already provided 135,000 pages of documents and provided more than 1,000 transcribed interviews we have tried to. >> but not completely. >> whenever we can.

>> another term in this hearing whenever we can, i don't recall, probably recall, probably, those are reoccurring terms. mr. gruber, the above the administration's promise the american people 37 times that if you like your plan you can keep your plan. when you were working on the law, did you believe, a mr. gruber, did you believe that nobody would lose their plan due to obamacare? >> i believe that would not affect the vast majority of americans. >> did you believe no one has the president said with the is a plan they liked? >> as i said it would not affect the majority of americans but it is true that some people might have to upgrade the plans because it was not comprehensive.

>> so they could not keep their plan even if they liked it? >> why did the president makes that representation if it was not true? that they could not keep their plan or have to upgrade or change? >> five not of political advisor. >> in 2013 article in "the new yorker". not everyone that liked the plan could keep the plan. when you knew the of representation such as this instance did you ever voice any concerns? >> i interpreted that comments to say for the vast majority of americans it

would not affect the relationships. >> you are the economist with the of model that you describe as entirely accurate. a learned professor we don't take that away but the president said 37 times if you like the plan you can keep it. of my constituency of 800,000 people one leukemia patient who had a plan she liked could not keep that. and she is not stupid. she could not keep the plan. a young pastor and wife and a local church but as of yesterday could not keep the plan they had and could not

find one that is set before them. a hard-working young man in my district spent his entire weekend try to get on to obamacare but as of yesterday morning i watched him cry -- try to get a plan through the web site and still could not get it. he is not stupid numerous constituents that while they may have found the plan under obamacare that they could like gore keep it was reasonable in cost to pay the deductibles or copays or

the prescription in drug costs they could not afford it and i would suggest transparency is what you see is not what you get. my time has expired i now recognize mr. carr right. >> thanks to the witnesses for appearing today and gnashing their teeth over the affordable care act administrator, ms. tavenner you were not there and i was not in a the congress for the voting of they see a. but i think what the american public wants of us to take a lot to improve it and make it work for everybody.

and that is why it pays me to have to secure the hearings while may criticize those who may have said something understated are overstated the fax. people are traveling through the world is through their lives underdo by excessive concerns for the truth and maybe mr. gruber get your life you are one of them but there was the chance for repentance for renewal of life and i hope you take that. but to pick up on something that mr. lynch was talking about. really get five minutes and it took up the balance of his time to explain the concern of the cadillac tax and i'm hearing about that at home as well. it is yes or no, ms.

tavenner will you undertake to review to rethink that to engage those with whom you work to rethink that and maybe go back to the drawing board warda cadillac tax and to make a work for all americans. >> the president has been clear he would be willing to work with congress to make improvements. >> thank-you for that. in the unguarded moment in the statements that he considered to be a false lead but among them is the adn that health care

spending in this nation is the lowest increase in 50 years. i was surprised would you comment on that, ms. tavenner? >> based on the health care expenditure report last week that our office did it is the lowest trend of health care spending it is one of the lowest of 2013. and expenditure is that the all-time low. >> there is not a lot that is refreshing to talk about aca and recrimination but

not? >> that is one of them that million signed up in the marketplace. >> employer through the 1990's if we provided health care and we saw increases in the double digits even 20 percent or higher for their premiums we were paying to cover employees and it was awful. i was dismayed. is hurt every year to duet. what is the average increase for this year under the aca? to make it could vary by region but it is single

digits for increases with the employer's insurance separate and apart is 3% this year that follows the overall extremely low trend certainly there are changes of copays and deductibles but it is a much lower gross state and years passed and i share your concerns. >> 84 appearing to day ms. tavenner. i yield back. >> now our call vague is jubes allowed to participate in today's hearing. now we go two's the gentleman from north carolina. >> mr. gruber as everyone knows the president said if you like your plan you can keep it but it was though light of the year it was in

the afghan and my constituents actually according to the north carolina department of insurance 473,000 lost their insurance because of obamacare. this is perplexing. you had a moment of clarity and honesty where you said a lack of transparency helps to pass obamacare but i concur and i appreciate your honesty. . .

>> what i was focused on is the net increase we have which has been quite substantial. >> so it is not relevant to your calculation that there would be people that would lose their health insurance? >> that was part of the calculation. >> it was. there has always been charged. did you think it would be such a large number? >> i don't recall the exact numbers, but we did model some individuals would lose their existing plans.

>> i think you anticipated this question. question. is it similar to the number you calculated? >> i don't know the national estimate and how it compares to what i projected. >> was their discussion at senior levels in the white house, hhs about this potential loss? >> i don't recall. >> there was no moment of moral clarity, of honesty? there is no discussion at the time that maybe we should put the brakes on this? we will have a lot of people lose their preferred health insurance plan? >> i was present for discussion. i provided numbers and was present for discussion of those numbers and interpretation of what they met. >> did anyone say, pause for

a moment. if if you like your health insurance plan you can keep it. that is not, in fact, the case. >> i was not in the discussion. >> but in the meetings you read through these numbers and said to the administration, look, you have plenty of experience in that. he said to this administration because your in the employ of this administration, there we will be people that lose their plans. there are their are also going to be people that get other plans, but their will be people that lose their plans. did this not registered? did this fall on deaf ears? >> all i know i know is what my modeling showed and what i conveyed. >> you conveyed that they would be people that lose their preferred health insurance plan. >> i conveyed i conveyed

that there would be churned in the market. >> as i said before, some lose and some game. if you like your plan you can keep it it was, in fact, allied based on your numbers and the data you provided. >> i interpreted referring to the fact that the vast majority of americans would be able to maintain their health insurance. >> you also said the only way is to actually pay lip service to fundamental cost control. you talk about cost control. so was it just lip service? >> fundamental cost control is very hard. the affordable care act does not solve the problem. >> but it did pay lip service.

>> the affordable care act is by far the most efficient piece of legislation in our nations history. >> okay. and so has it outperformed or underperformed remodel? >> my model over the budget -- >> no, so far. >> so far in terms of health insurance coverage is matched very well. >> okay. so that lip service was important. >> i don't understand the question. >> you set in order to best that you have to pay lip service to a fundamental cost control. >> as i said, fundamental cost control is difficult. it takes all the first steps necessary. >> my time has expired. >> i thank the gentleman and ask unanimous consent to have the actual numbers as revised placed into record. >> without objection, so ordered.

>> the gentleman from vermont, we are pleased to have you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. a couple of things. mr. gruber, you apologized. it is unfortunate. this whole debate about health care is fundamentally important. it has been divisive in congress. unfortunately the remarks you made provided clear ammunition. but when you start commenting about what you expect might be the legal outcome,, do you have any training as a lawyer? >> no, i do not. >> when you comment on the quality of life of the american people which i think all of us ever great deal of respect for the word, you would, i take it,

apologize for any insulting remarks you made? >> it was inexcusable that i i try to appear smarter by insulting. talk about folks who had a bad experience, some people have had good, but it really is profoundly important to the american people that they have security about healthcare. now going back to your area of expertise, broadly speaking, improved with the passage of the affordable care act. just give just give me specifics as to the number of items that are better now >> lowered the rate of uninsurance. the affordable care act, individuals state pre-existing conditions and

the insecurity that comes from having to buy insurance on there own. contributed to a historically low care. >> it is your opinion that the affordable care act shares many things in common with what was called romney care in massachusetts? >> yes, it is. >> and you work on the massachusetts version. >> yes. >> i think i heard you say that the uninsured rate in massachusetts is about three or 4 percent. >> before the affordable care act it was 3 percent. even lower today. >> my understanding in the passage of the massachusetts bill is that there actually was a bipartisan vote. is that correct? >> yes. >> that eluded us here. now, my view is that their are a lot of things we still have to fix. no single bill we will be

the magic fix. i have asked you come in the cost issue on healthcare, the one that i think stephen -- needs even more attention first, what has happened to the growth of health care spending since the passage of the affordable care act. >> i think as we discussed earlier, 3.7 percent for 2013, the lowest on record. >> does that apply across the board? obama care or on there own private? >> please put the microphone -- >> it is across the board. >> what would you cite as

important elements in the affordable care act? >> the affordable care act took a number of steps in a wide variety of directions to try to slow spending, most notably as mentioned change the way the healthcare providers are reimbursed. readmissions for hospitals and really just led to a very innovative thinking and how we can fix our broken medical system. >> in vermont where we had an ongoing discussion about healthcare we have healthcare providers that are really focused on trying to figure out better ways to curb infection, to change the billing process, but they are on the front lines. what are some of the things that we can do to help them be successful? >> the most important thing

is to continue to learn, to try to understand what is working to deliver this. >> i would agree. i would also say some upfront costs and how to work with the electronic health record to actually assuming risk. >> accountable care organizations are part of that. >> yes. >> thank you. i yield back. >> we now go to the gentleman from oklahoma. one of y'all. >> i want to go through several transparency issues. what what was the plan for states that are not self-sufficient in their oversight and the running of their exchanges? lost its behalf to be

self-sufficient. >> i think currently assuming you are talking about the smaller states currently they are self-sufficient and obviously carrying through for 2015. we are in ongoing discussions with them. >> our you defining self-sufficient? >> you are aware the funding ends at the end of this year both of them are dependent upon their user fee. that will carry them through >> the state of vermont has had some conversations about the cost overruns and the pursuing of federal grants. rhode island, this week there was an editorial that came out suggesting to the government upon this because

of the cost overruns. there is there is some buzz and conversation about states and what they we will do. my question is, the law requires they be self-sufficient by that. a twofold question. states come back to you and say, say, we need a grant, additional dollars. we will they get federal dollars contrary to the law saying it must be self-sufficient? >> any federal dollars awarded have to be awarded by the end of 2014. >> would they get a larger portion given to them? the implication that this is to help your shortfall this year and to help you for next year. >> is very specific, what the grant can be used for. >> could it be used for 2015? >> i will have to get you

that information. >> the law says they have to be self-sufficient by january the first. if the grant is given to them those dollars can be used after contrary to the law. >> am happy to get you that information? trying to be contrarian. is there their any money being given to them that they we will use after january 1, 2015? >> i'm not trying to be contrary either. i can't answer that in the general question. i will give you the information. >> just a blanket response would be we we will follow the law and not give them extra funds this year that they we will use next year contrary to the statute. >> i i'm happy to get you specific information. >> i look forward to that. i assume that we we will follow the law on that. the question that goes along with that as well, we have the numbers for this month. monthly effectuated

enrollments from here on out >> and i think this has led to our mistake. if you will and does me for a minute and let me try to explain, effectuated enrollment, those individuals who have paid. so what we gave, the information that was current , we we will be able to run another effectuated enrollment. we can get you that information. >> monthly snapshots? >> there's only one more month left. >> right. open right. open enrollment goes through. >> let's close 2014. last night we sent chairman isa a large thing. >> including questions that you and i had talked about september of last year. >> yes. we appreciate that.

>> the second thing has to do with 2015. the first time we would be able to look at effectuated enrollment was mid february or late february. payments are not made until sometime in january. we have to check them for accuracy. >> you are getting numbers on that consistently as well is is that every month? every two months? when will we get totals? just plain selections, i went on the website. >> and this is where i think we we will do regular intervals. we should be able to provide >> what was the estimate, the original rollout. >> that is interesting.

i don't no we had it. >> cbo did. they revise that downward. >> sixty-seven. >> the end of this year. >> i don't think that's correct. i would have to look at that. >> 10, 12. >> you mean for the end of 2015. >> 2014 or 2015. >> the end of 2014 i believe was the 7 million that was revised if i remember correctly. the end of 2015, it was taught to five. >> of the chairman will indulge me. trying to get accurate numbers based on the expansion. the new expanded definition. will we be able to get a

listing of the difference between people that enrolled in medicaid and those who became eligible based upon the expansion? >> we are working on that even as we speak. >> when do you think we we will get that number? >> soon. >> defined soon. >> i might note that congress will be going. >> i don't think we we will meet that definition lacks the senator will getting a report next year. >> help me understand soon. >> in the process. >> geological terms. >> geological terms. >> about a month. >> early on i probably should have gotten into the difference between geological, biblical. i could have done so much to speed things up.

we now go to the gentle lady from new mexico. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank you for tackling a very difficult challenge. while i have concerns about rollout that has been extended or not addressed as effectively as it could be, we are all in a better place this is a much smoother rollout. if i can i want to hit three things. the affordable care act not just by making some transformation, transformation, the fee-for-service environment, but by having more people covered and lowering uninsured and uncompensated care, which is great, but it did not do enough in my

opinion to deal with quality or cost. we continue to get people insured and continue to deal with real cost issues and real structure issues in no a way in which we reimburse providers and incentivize patients. given that in our state new mexico has one of the lowest or highest uninsured populations in the country. we are doing better, but we could do much, much better. given our large hispanic population which continues to be a real challenge across the country, can you talk to me a little bit about what you are doing better about outreach and transparency and communication and education? the hispanic demographic was the lowest. so what are you doing to specifically address that? >> for starters this is something to five you are correct, we identified it at the end of the open enrollment last year. so we created a workgroup.

we have created advocacy groups, worked with navigators to make sure that they are trained. >> be specific. talk to me about specifically how that would translate to somebody having a better chance. >> let me start with the navigators, we have done more to ensure that we were dealing with bilingual staff not just a presence a presence but a significant presence. we have been working through , command i can get you information specific, but we have been working with advocacy groups inside the state. >> i would encourage you to do that, and i appreciate that you are trying to

answer, and i want to make sure that with my limited time i get i get as much as possible. i have a suggestion. you are touching an individual consumer six times. you have them in the room, get them enrolled. that is a huge problem. i appreciate your presence. the second thing is getting more people covered. i am asking for the administration to work more closely with members of congress. while we are seeing access and the exclusion of pre-existing conditions or is a barrier to providing coverage. while i think most folks still are not understanding

that the affordable care act minimally does anything to insurance companies,, we set the floor but are they have to cover, they make decisions about the provider network and what they we will pay. what hospitals will be in the network. lower total cost and create much more expensive provider networks. the last part is my colleague we have been waiting for you to respond. we are looking for numbers.

while you wait for three months to respond, that is three months when you mexicans don't let wait -- don't get health care coverage in medicaid. i am encouraged to take a stronger, more productive role. thank you. >> i think the gentle lady. the gentleman from arizona. >> in your testimony you stated i am not a a political advisor or a politician. i like that. there is something very similar. you are a student to detail. >> the beauty is in the

detail. >> often that is the case. >> so would you like about any of your comments,, some of the aspects that you saw on television. were those outright lies or just not politically pleasant? >> they were not lies? so they were truthful with regard to stalwart evaluation of the process. >> once again trying to conjecture about the process. >> i want to go back to this. you were not lying. you were very truthful about the process. >> once again. >> it may not be politically savvy, but what you were doing,, you were very honest in regard to the process. >> once again, i was making statements.

>> i don't know about expertise. we just talked about the beauty is in the detail. you have your inclinations. you you had these models with obama care. you are a student. being from mit, one of the most prestigious places in the world. >> i believe so, yes. >> when you are proud of a product you are vested in that product. you will be very watchful as it takes place and maybe as it has issues. >> i was very proud and vested in the model and numbers are produced. >> am going to go back to it. you were honest with your evaluation. i i mean, i watched you last night for almost four hours on all the different

aspects. i read body language extremely well. you were in your element when you were talking about the critiques of the south carolina. let me ask you something, who helped you on your testimony today? >> no one signed off on my testimony. it's testimony. it's my own testimony. i received assistance from counsel. >> hhs, the administration. >> no, i did not. >> were you coached in any way? >> the words that are written on my own. i did work with my counsel on preparing. >> so the numbers of my colleagues in regards, pretty astute with numbers. you know those numbers. >> once again, the numbers are produced in terms of my micro simulation modeling,

i'm very confident. >> you are also pretty good with numbers. i mean, i have been watching the bantering back and forth. forth. you are very prepared. when we ask you a question you and appropriately responsive. you are good with numbers because you here them all day long, do you not? >> i do. >> i agree. i agree. agree. so, you know, this preponderance of looking at the following rate of dollars being spent on healthcare, i will go back to the microcosm. can anybody even think about this? the gentle lady from new mexico talked about access, did access, did that come into your aspect? deductibles are so high that no one is using them? >> you know, if you look at the final rule last year we tried to make some accommodations to handle the

deductibles. >> well, that's nice. changing around some of those, but from my standpoint when people don't get care you create a bigger problem. you know, the gentleman from maryland is aware of the aspects. it reduces access. without getting healthcare. you are aware of that situation. >> i i am aware of the situation that occurred. >> once again,, i heard people on the other side over here saying it was a transparent process. i am very well aware of having a bipartisan type of application. healthcare is a personal score. not a republican or democratic issue. it became a very democratic issue. they used reconciliation and

a lot of gimmicks to pass it. we were deceitful and everything that we have done acknowledging the problem, being being truthful on it, we here tortured language from the gentleman to your left. this was out right the wrong way to go. from that standpoint it sickens me to actually hear what i heard today from both you and mr. gruber. it is sad that we are playing with people's health care when they deserve something better. frankly not having the fax is disdainful. we have seen this perpetuated by the administration to here. equal branches of government should have that opportunity command the american people deserve better. thank you. >> thank you. was there an answer? okay. we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i i want to express my appreciation to you and the ranking member. i want to thank the folks for being here today. there is a lot of characterizations, the testimony and things that have gone on. we go back and forth. the american consumers i find it quite intelligent with their efforts to try to become good consumers of healthcare information. these are not got you questions. i have a little bit of chance to help. what we're seeing out there right now, they are the holders of their electronic health records that they are bouncing around, and they are frustrated, costs are

rising. they are paying more, which i think is one of the factors driving some of the containment of healthcare. at the same time, people are not getting healthcare. but my problem is, how are we working on assuring that these systems electronic health record can communicate through the larger structure? if you are in the health system you can do okay. they send records down. this whole idea, but if you have a surgeon outside the systems are not communicating with each other. what are we doing? trying to break through those adhesions so we can get to the.where we can allow consumers to be much better in helping them guide there healthcare and negotiate through the

systems whomever the healthcare provider is. >> what you are talking about with the issue of interoperability is one of our remaining challenges. we have strong systems. they worked together well, but when we are moving across systems, that is still a challenge. as we look at the meaningful use one of the big pieces we are going to stress his interoperability. is interoperability. we have some examples. the question is how we get that to the mainstream. >> that does appear to be and will continue to be. they are here today. they may go away for two or three months to different physicians. >> i see it happening in two ways. it tends to work.

the second is with the certification requirement. we will be working with the department, hhs and cms. kind of a two group effort to make sure we put and certifications. i agree with you. >> from the perspective of the patients, are we doing more or how is this helping us to be able to understand? how are you moving to allow the patient to become a better consumer? >> that is, again, we spent a lot of 2014 helping people sign up. now how do you educate individuals who signed up? we have started work that we're doing, started within cms. from coverage from coverage to care, helping people understand what copayments

are, how they -- one thing that is greatly misunderstood is that individuals don't pay co-pays and deductibles for preventive care. >> certain kinds. a lot of that they do. >> that is how we we will start. we will work with issuers and advocates to get the education out there. it is pretty complicated. >> complicated. >> it is complicated, particularly for the consumers. i don't agree with the way the system is set up, but that is fundamentally. i hope you continue to focus on that. >> i agree. >> thank you. >> with the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> ask unanimous consent that the publication data my numbers you can use to be placed in the record correct without.

according to this article healthcare costs are up a little under 4%. but 4 percent. but in order to get that figure utilization is down. the total amount of services dropped off and the cost for services went up, meaning if you need services they went up a lot more than 3 percent the cost of service, total expenditure did not go up as much because people are essentially not buying as much. >> i don't believe that's true. >> do you no that it's not true or are you just saying that you don't want to believe? maybe your staff can tell you. >> i would have to see the article. >> you don't no if healthcare costs is up and utilization is down because people have higher out-of-pocket expenditures? >> if you would let me finish my sentence what

we're seeing is that inpatient admissions are down which may mean more appropriate use of services, not necessarily that it is bad. >> services, quantity of services are down, and your conjecture is that it might be a good thing. >> it can be a good thing. yes. >> i i will accept that is your conjecture. >> i'm sorry. >> okay. >> i apologize. recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a question for doctor gruber concerning tax credits. at a conference in 2012 you said if you are a state and don't set up an exchange that means your citizens don't get there tax credit. that statement that statement was consistent with other public statements you made all of which

express your belief that if a a state refuses to set up an obama care exchange that state could not qualify for obama care tax credit. the administration has ordered distribution of billions of dollars to persons who live in states that don't have state run obama care exchanges. this executive action seems to conflict with your numerous past statements about how obama care works. in your testimony this morning you claim that you misspoke repeatedly. the.i i believe i was making was about the possibility for the federal government whatever reason to not create a federal exchange. he further explained that you think the administration can choose whether or not to create federal exchanges. so if a state refuses to set

up an obama care exchange in the federal government refuses to set up an obama care exchange and citizens of that state can't receive obama care tax credits. your new explanation of your previous public statement makes little sense. the law requires the federal government to create obama care exchanges. therefore every state must have an obama care exchange either set up by the state or the federal government. if that is the case, every state must have an obama care exchange, exchange, what did you mean when you repeatedly said the citizens of some states may not qualify for tax credit? isn't it the case that people who live in states without a state a state run exchange cannot receive obama care tax credits? >> once again to mow when when i made those comments i believe what i was saying was with reflective

certainty about the implementation of the federal exchange. >> are you suggesting that the law does not require the federal government to set up an exchange? >> i don't recall. >> you ran the economic model on obama care and you don't no what the losses. >> and every every single economic model i ran i assumed that exchanges would be available regardless of whether they were run by the state or federal government. my comments were reflecting on the certainty of windows would be ready. >> you were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to run an economic model on obama care and yet you are making statements that did not reflect the actual language? >> amid a series of statements. >> thank you. >> i yield back. i just want to make sure i understand.

we famously heard you have to pass it to find out what is in it. following up, at the time of its passage were you aware that the language would have allowed your model not to actually be executed? in other words, that states if they chose not to provide the language explicitly was preventing that reimbursement and thus you have a different a different result. were you ever given that information? >> i was always modeling the tax credits under the assumption that would be available in all states. >> you always modeled something different than the law, but let me just go and do one quick thing while i have got the time. you you are an author, and i purchased one of your books. in that book, doctor jonathan gruber professor of economics massachusetts

institute of technology and director of the health care program at the national bureau of economic research. a key architect of massachusetts ambitious health-care reform effort and consulted extensively with the obama administration and congress during the development of the affordable care act. the "washington post" called him possibly the democratic parties most influential healthcare expert. do you do you recognize that as being in your book? >> i do. >> and then so if you are an author, put it in your book and recognize it, do you stand by it? >> absolutely. >> you are, in fact, a key architect of the act and that you did contribute extensively to the administration and the congress. >> i contributed an enormous amount of modeling and

economic support to the administration and congress. >> and consulted extensively with the obama administration and congress during the development of the affordable care act. and you quoted the "washington post." >> i can't stand by the "washington post" opinion, but i can stand by the fact i provided an enormous number of hours. >> you put it in your book. >> it was a flattering a flattering quote, and i put it in my book. >> you want to stand by something you put in a book, including the consulted extensively with the obama administration and congress that you want to distance yourself from the "washington post"? >> am just saying it was not my words. >> okay. we will let the washington "washington post" credibility speak for itself. i thank you.

>> the american people are too stupid to understand the difference. >> when i said that i was at an economic conference being glib. >> are you offering this as a defense for saying it will for meaning it? >> and offering it as a defense for using an appropriate inappropriate and hurtful, inexcusable language. >> well, what did you mean by too stupid to understand the difference? >> congressman, i did not mean anything by it. >> you set it. you had to have meant it. >> i was, once again, being glib. >> what did you mean when you said it was a basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the american voter? >> once again, an example of my inexcusable arrogance. >> what did you mean when you said the american people

don't care about the uninsured? >> once again, that was an overstatement of trying to conjecture on political topics in which i am not an expert. >> i have listened to you all morning talk about your lack of political acumen and that you are not a politician. therefore you don't no not to call people stupid. most of the people watching this morning are not politicians, and they don't call people stupid. i can't help but note another one of your quotes. that was politically infeasible. do you remember saying that? >> yes. >> you do like to factor in the politics from time to time, don't you? i also happen to note that usually you insult the american voter, not the american public. so so you do factor in politics, don't you?

>> i have tried on a number of occasions to pretend i no more about politics. >> do you think not being a politician is a defense? i mean, i know initially he said said that you offered these comments at a conference. i think you meant conferences. you said conference when you on a very obscure television show and initially apologized for what you said were inappropriate comments. today your defenses that you are not a politician. is that the best you can come up with? >> the best i can come up with is to apologize. >> but but i want to know. i mean,, the pervasiveness is so much that it has to be more than that. it has to be more than just an episodic mistake you made. here, let me keep going and see if this helps you. what did you mean when you said you wish that you had been

able to be transparent, but you would rather have the law than not. >> once again, it was my trying to conjecture about a a political process in which i am not an expert. >> what did you mean when you said it was written in a tortured way to make sure the cbo did not score the mandate as fact? >> once again, using inappropriate language to try to sound impressive about something to my colleagues. >> do you see a trend developing, professor gruber gruber? >> i don't understand the question. >> that's a lot of stupid quotes you said. that is the trend. >> a lot of inexcusable quotes. >> right. again, your defense is that you are not a politician. what is a a non- politician to do talking about political events? >> tried to make himself seem smarter by conjecturing >> so you are a professor at mit and you're worried about not looking smart enough? >> yes. >> well, you succeeded if that was your goal.

i want to ask you, you, are you sorry to five when did you realize that these comments were inappropriate? because it took you about a year to apologize. i'm i'm trying to figure out if you realize sooner or was it just the morning before you went on msnbc? when did you realize that these comments are indefensible and inappropriate? >> i honestly did not remember making them. >> you did not remember calling your fellow citizens stupid, and you did not remember saying that you are the only person who cares about the uninsured and the rest of your fellow citizens don't give a damn? >> i don't because they were glib and thoughtless comments. >> well, professor gruber, professor gruber, let me just say what it looks like from this vantage., you thought that they were pithy and funny until the video showed up.

even then even then it took you a little while to apologize. what i am struggling with is whether your apology is because you said it or because you meant it. because you said it or because you meant it? >> i did not mean it. >> all of these quotes that i just read and you did not mean a single one of them? >> what i said, congressman mike glib, glib, thoughtless, and inexcusable language. >> used it a lot. which tends to undercut the notion that you were sorry for episodic misstatements. i just read to you about ten you see where we might possibly think that apology is a little disingenuous maybe. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is yielding ten seconds. following up, when you made

these repeated comments, glib, inappropriate comments in an intellectual community with lots of other like-minded people, did anyone come up to you and tell you that what you were saying was an appropriate? >> not that i can recall. >> i guess what you said was popular in that community. we now go to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you very much. you have the the dubious distinction of having generated more buzz than anybody but eric holder. i apologize if my questions are disjointed. some some of them come from twitter. one was why won't he answer the question. i will translate that more. with respect to questions about the money that you made consulting on obama care from the federal and state government, you

constantly are lawyered up or have not answered the questions were not recalled. i want to be perfectly clear this committee has governmentwide jurisdiction. we are the taxpayer watchdog. i am asking you right now flat out to provide a detailed list of every penny of taxpayer money you have made from the government consulting on obama care from the federal government, from the state on the federally funded grant, i am asking you to provide that within 30 days. i look forward to you providing to the community and will work with the incoming chairman to subpoena that if it is not supplied voluntarily. let me go on. do do you feel bad about taking all this money? >> money i received for my economic consulting work was compensation for the work i did in economics and modeling. >> okay.

you met once in the president's office. based on the information you provided in your general understanding, do you believe the administration was truthful and transparent in the things they said working up to the passage of obama care? >> i believe that the discussion was wholly transparent. >> do you feel like -- you testified earlier that you knew there was going to be some churn. did you feel like you were complacent and presenting the affordable care act in a dishonest or untruthful manner? >> the numbers that i presented as part of my economic modeling or all the

best of my economic modeling. >> you knew some of the things the administration were saying were not true. why didn't you raise a red flag? >> i am not a political advisor. it's not my job to discuss what the president is saying or not saying. >> another question from twitter. did your insurance get more expensive? did your deductible go up? >> health insurance costs in america have gone up every year for the past 50 years. >> substantially more when you fell under the affordable care act? >> no, it did not. >> minded. where else do i want to go? when you were talking to mr. mchenry he said that the affordable care act did not solve the problem of rising health insurance costs. he went on to say that it was a first step. what are the next steps?

>> the next step really in my view is to learn from the first steps, to learn what is working and what is not and try to build on that toward a stronger cost control. >> if you were to sit down and write a new affordable care act, what would be the top two or three things? >> right now the number one thing i would say is we need some time to see what is happening, to learn from that, and then to not be in a rush but sit down and learn from that and take the next necessary steps. >> would you consider the ultimate solution to be single-payer or government run? >> i don't think there is a single ultimate fix. >> all right. you have also been thrown under the bus by the president as just another advisor.

i think i would be insulted by that certainly by the "washington post" article that said how key you were to that. you want to come clean and just tell us if you told the many of the things that they were saying were untrue, who you told and tried to stop? that kind of loops back in to my complacency question. could you have have stopped some of those untruthful statements? >> i am not a political advisor. >> all right. i will yield back. >> i think the gentleman. we now we now go to the gentleman from massachusetts institute of technology. and kentucky, for that matter. >> thank you. it has been a bad couple of

months next to one of our witnesses. i reviewed your extensive and impressive curriculum vitae. it is 17 pages long. would it be accurate to say you chose economics, particularly the field of economic models to inform public policy as part of your career? >> certainly one of the things i find appealing is how it can help form public policy. >> you are in a position of trust. you have been to the white house many times, met with the president. tell us what you met with the president about. >> one meeting with the president. there were six experts and about 15 other members of the administration. >> you were an expert on how

to control cost. >> also to discuss health care reform. >> independent payment independent payment advisory board part of that discussion? >> i don't believe it existed at that meeting. >> okay. but you are very well aware of it. >> i am aware of the work, yes. >> so given this position of trust and the fact that you -- do you have any ethics training at mit or harvard? >> as a condition for receiving federal grants we have to take the human subjects test. >> and mit has an ethics policy, correct. >> yes. >> okay. this is a little bit philosophical. you are a doctorate of philosophy. under what circumstances is it ethical to deceive someone for their own benefit? >> i'm not aware of

circumstances. >> could you imagine maybe an adult could withhold information from children for their own benefit? now, so if you understand that you understand why my constituents are offended by your proposition that it is okay to deceive or oxygenate for somebody's benefit compounding the insult that you deliver to them is the fact that they pay your salary. do you understand why it was so insulting? you patronize them. you are condescending. and my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle are upset with you simply because you said what you thought. you said what they were all thinking. they knew what was best for my constituents. constituents. i submit to you, my constituents are not your

children, and they have the right of self-determination. so this gets me to another instance where you committed candor. in 1997 you co-authored a co-authored a paper entitled abortion legalization and child living circumstances. on page 20 you conclude that abortion legalization appears to be associated with an improvement in the average living circumstances of birth outcomes. and on page 26 you six you state that your research indicates that the legalization of abortion if the government 14 billion and welfare payments. providing more access to abortion, is that a a worthy social outcome to achieve cost savings for the government? >> that is not what my paper was about.

it was about empirical fact. >> tommy what you meant, by 1993 all cohorts under the age 18 were born under legalized abortion, and we estimate states state savings of 1.6 billion per year. what what did you mean by positive selection? because in this paper you are talking about providing more access to abortion, socioeconomic strata of our constituents. >> what the paper did -- >> what did you mean by positive selection? >> in that paper we were studying the characteristics of children who are born before and after abortion was legalized. you can infer. >> what you inferred i find i find chilling. what you inferred is if we reduce the number of people life we will be better for the rest of us, specifically you seem to suggest that if we eliminate or reduce the number of poor people this would make life better.

and this gets me to my final., which is the independent payment advisory board. my constituents fear that this is, in fact, a method by which obama care will ration health care for the elderly and implement cost savings. my question to you, is your philosophy on abortion that it can save money and improve outcomes have any implication to the realm of care? you argue that abortion support children raised the average living circumstances for the rest of us and save the government money. there their are fewer elderly people, particularly poor elderly people, wouldn't that save a ton of money has an economist? candy you understand the dangerous implications of going down this path?

>> i have no philosophy of abortion, no philosophy of end-of-life care. my job is to deliver the empirical facts so that you all can make the necessary -- >> what would your facts be on the elderly? >> i i don't understand the question. >> end-of-life care. >> i do not advocate. >> thank you, i you, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to mr. meadows. >> thank you. it you. it has been a privilege to serve under your. i am going to come to you, doctor gruber. you have you have made over 20 statements that you are not political. yet i think the american people would see your testimony is political. ..

>> you practice that. >> i do not agree that it was not heartfelt. >> let me ask you about your economic model because he said it was accurate. how many in your economic model, how many americans would lose their health care and could not keep their plan is as promised under the economic model mx. >> you can recall all these

other figures but you can't recall that one? >> no, i cannot. >> once again, that depends upon -- >> can you give us the number in your economic model for those that were not going to be able to keep their health care? >> i do not know. >> you do not have it? >> i don't know whether i can or not. >> mr. chairman, i see this witness as being very reluctant to give honest answers and it is very troubling not just to me but to the american people. the administration didn't want you to sit beside him because they were afraid that his lack of transparency would be contagious or you would be viewed in a different model. i asked you some questions before this committee and i asked at that particular time

about a rollout and why did you not delay it in your response to me is that it's i didn't think it was possible the way that this was configured nor that i'd think it was necessary. do you stand by that today? >> i stand by the fact that i felt that we were in a position to rollout last october. >> i am in possession of this is was less than 48 hours before rollout. it was on september 29. and in that it says just so we're clear, we decided in january that we were going to go no matter what. and it goes on even further to

say that this occurred when she threatened me with this if i didn't take it on. are you familiar? >> i was not familiar on that e-mail. >> your number two person, if you have read all of this, it was indicating that you were not ready and yet it really didn't matter. >> i don't happen to agree with that. >> so it does matter. okay, in that same e-mail screen, we were putting together hardware and installing hardware less than 48 hours before a rollout so that we wouldn't have a crash on a rollout that day. you not see that it is troubling that we were installing with a less than 48 hours ago, we were

installing hardware? that wouldn't be tested? >> we were installing it from this capacity and i have the numbers. but you don't see that that is troubling that you wouldn't be ready when you are going to put in a piece of hardware less than 48 hours later? >> we were increasing our capacity to handle more volume. >> okay, so issue with you today? or she was forced to retire? >> she was not forced to retire and in fact. >> issue retire? and i center staff the information with regard to almost 4 million people they will get hit with a tax bill some 10 to 12 months from now.

and because they are benchmarked has changed. and are you notifying those 4 million people if they do not reenroll reign. >> we are individually notifying folks. >> they have been individually notified that they need to update their information and make sure that their information is current and that they are selecting this. >> it is not a general marketing thing.

>> if they automatically renewed they will get a tax bill. >> welcome i don't know that that is necessarily true. >> the rebate that you get whether your income changes or not is based on selecting the benchmark of the plan and if it changes,. >> i understand that. someone who makes the same amount of money,, space on the same plan, got a rebate this last 11 or 12 months, they will get a tax bill on the notes to

them. >> and that would be correct. but that is what i'm saying. if they automatically renew this by february. >> not necessarily. >> they cannot change their plan after february, whether or not they have this will depend on each individual with what you are trying to say and this would

be part of the original plan. and they have to and update that there are lots of things that can be affected. >> what i'm saying is the counties i represent will change because of the different time. if they do not go in and select a new plan. >> first of all, if they don't select a new plan, then it will be automatically renewed. >> i appreciate the gentleman from north carolina. i think the gentleman made a good point that every american -- he or she is not getting this information and they have to talk about whether they are getting into this. ..

from the very beginning a lady said you have to pass it before you can see what's in it. you remember who that was? >> believe that's a quote attributed to nancy pelosi. >> correct. it was 2700 pages, the original act, and if you read that 2700 pages you'll see a lot that says to be determined, in that bill. so the bill wasn't really complete. so how can you have a bill, pass a bill, before you can see what's in it, and call that transparent. i didn't get to see it -- well ex-i wasn't here but other members of congress really couldn't see that. then we find out now that, well, we're told that you can keep your insurance and you like it,

and we know that's a lie. you can keep your doctor, and we know that's a lie. and you can keep your hospital and that's a lie. lies on top of lies. and it's not really about health care, either. it's a tax. a premiums will be lower, and yet they're higher. another lie. so, let's backtrack. you apologized today for comment us you made in the video. correct and. >> yes. >> and several times here you said, you apologized for insulting others to make yourself look smarter or better than others. that's paraphrasing but that's what you said. is that correct? you want to repeat what you actually said? >> what you said is a good paraphrase. >> very good. so let's be clear. you did not apologize for helping the administration deceive the american people on this healthcare act, or for telling america the truth in your video comments about how it was a fraud upon the american people.

is that correct, sir? >> i think the affordable care act was passed in a highly transparent fashion with hundreds of hours of debate. >> but every single thing they promised was a lie. how can you call that transparent? you didn't say, what we're about to do for you is not going really do you any good. you're not going to keep your doctor. you're not going to keep your hospital. your premiums are going to go up. why didn't you say that? you were the ash ticket -- one of the architects. you've created the model. is that model flawed? >> i did economic microsimulation modeling dish. >> so you actually created the model to justify their conclusions. seems about what you did. you're a lot smarter than i am. here's an opportunity to come clean. lies on top of lies. this is what you have done. you have been a coconspirator and defrauding the american

people and admitted it in two videos in comments i saw on tv. i saw some here today. and helping this administration deceive our citizens, you received grants and contracts from the government for either the federal government or the states. was it closer to $2.5 million or $2.8 million you saved over the course of implementing this obamacare? >> you're an economist. you know how to read a balance sheet. 2.5 or 2.8 million or more? plus or minus $100,000. >> once again i don't recall the exact amount. >> it's about lies and distortions. why are you continuing to help this administration deceive the american public? with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> if i could have time for just

40 seconds. you keep saying you don't recall. do you not recall any numbers at all? i haven't seen a number you can recall since you gave us that approximately $400,000 in your opening statement. you're an economist. you work with numbers. why is it that every question that comes from this side of the dais, we get a don't recall marx gruber. >> the $400,000 is a number i recall well because it's been made public. the other contracts and things i received from state and federal government are not number is have at my fingertips but numbers that the committee can discuss with my counsel what is appropriate to reveal. >> you know, you're making it obvious we not only have to discuss with your counsel but we have to serve a subpoena. you're not giving us a fair estimate of the approximately $4 million you said in your earlier statement -- well, this

is excess and didn't all come to me but you haven't answered one question about grants and contracts. i never knew anyone in business who got even a small amount of something that didn't know about the grant or the contract gross value and then what they got from it. and it's amazing that you haven't begin us one number since that chosen amount, and that's a little disturbing, and i will caution you one last time, as these individuals ask their questions, that the goal was to get completed here today with sworn statements about numbers to the best of your recollection. approximation was good enough. the fact that every answer is, well, discuss with my lawyer, puts this committee in a position where it is very clear we're going to have to do more discovery, and likely you're going to be back here under the new chairmanship. so, mr. -- did you have one last question? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. just one last question. i understand, according to the

supreme court, this is a tax. correct? it's a tax. >> as i said earlier i don't believe the individual mandate -- >> but it's a tax for failing to engage in commerce. i i don't engage in obamacare, go on the web site, i'm going to be tacked or fined. correct? >> the individual map debt assesses a penalty on you if you don't have health insurance, unless you meet certain exemption criteria. >> i'd like to find some other examples of somebody being taxed for failing to engage commerce. it's kind of like me going into my local grocery store, walking around and not buying anything, and a federal agent is outside the -- -- >> mr. gruber, you deny -- it's been reported you received three, four, even five million dollars with your contract from the various state governments, many of them 400, $500,000 a

pop. are you saying you have no recollection of that and do you deny those reports? >> what i'm seeing is the amounts that have been reported are greatly in excess of what i received, in particular through federal grants but i don't -- >> is it in the millions, though? >> once again i don't know the exact amount. >> well, look, you really further undermine your credibility, i would think you would be able to give us a ballpark. it's going to be spined. we'll go through the exercise, the american people will get the truth. this idea of you denying you're the architect of obamacare, i'm just wondering -- you have been lauded in the press in the past as the architect -- an article in "the new york times" 20, 12, dubbed you mr. mandate, quote that said after mr. gruber help the administration put together the basic principles of the proposal, the white house leapt him to capitol hill to help congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation. so that's more than just providing some numbers.

and so the question is, if what you're saying is true today, that you're really not the architect of the law in any real sense, did you tell any of those reporters that they were inflating your role back in 2009-2010, 11, 123. >> yes. >> were any corrections made to the record? >> i don't know. >> this is pretty consistent media treatment. you testified that the comments about eligibility for tax credits, if the state didn't create an exchanges, that you made that comment because you weren't sure the federal government would actually set up an exchange, and that was in falls church, virginia, january, 2012, and that your explanation for that. correct? >> as i said at the time, don't recall exactly what i meant when i made that statement. looking back at the video, i believe that's what i had in mind. >> it's interesting. if you go further on in your comments you said, quote, the federal government has been sort of slow in put out its backstop,

i think -- meaning you think -- partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. so that was the comment that you made. and so even under that construction, you're saying that the federal government is deliberately slowing the creation of the exchange so more states will do it. so there must be a consequence for the states if they do not do that. so i don't think your explanation here today really resolves that. i think you still have meat comments from your perspective the termed of what you want to do politically. with some of the other comments you were making with this lack of transparency, want to be clear. what you were trying to say, think, is that the bill is convoluted. you've agree it's a very confusing statute. correct? >> a very complicated piece of legislation. >> the reason it was written that ware, you were straightforward about imposing costs on one american and then giving benefits to other americans, that would have run into political difficulty, and so the costs are still being

shifted to other americans, but they're being shifted under obamacare indirectly in a way that essentially masks what is happening. is that basically the deal? >> that very broad statement i generally don't agree with what just said. >> you don't believe that obamacare's convoluted nature serves to mask the true cost to individual policy holders. >> i do not. >> when people are paying more for premiums -- you did a report in wisconsin in 2011, win though you said premiums would go down, your report to wisconsin in 2011 said, actually, individual market premiumed will go up on average 30% relative to what they would have been had obamacare not been passed. >> the report i did for congress was interpreting cbo numbers, not my own, which discussed the fact the premiums would rise. >> the report for the state of

wisconsin said they would rise. >> after tax credits they fill on average. that's what my report showed. >> you said the -- most americans don't get tax credits to the average premium increase in wisconsin, correct? >> that was referring to individual market in which most wisconsinites will get tax credits. >> but many of them won't. thank you, i yield back. >> we now go to mr. collins for his round of questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the time and opportunity to be here. mr. gruber, words cannot express today basically -- i frankly didn't think it could get worse. congratulations, it got worse, coming in here with the attitude you had, i talked about my attorney -- did you actually file a tax return last year, have to qualify your income? frankly, i and he american people -- by implication voter who did not like the obamacare plan, did not vote for it, were probably not the stupid ones and my district, which voted against the president almost 80%, is full of what you would you

consider nonstupid people. i'm done with you. >> got a couple of questions. i'm going to go fairly quickly here. let's run through these. how much money was paid to insurers under the affordable care act program known as the call sharing reduction program in fiscal year 2014? >> i don't know that information. >> were you not briefed? >> on the cost sharing payment? >> how much money was paid in 2014? >> i have not been briefed on that. >> you do not have reports that can get you that information. >> i can get you that information. >> are you in charge of this program. >> i am in charm of this program. >> you do not know how much is paid out. >> i do not have that with me today. >> do you have someone that can find you information when they're handing you notes from behind? it is amazing to me you're on a program this large that you can't answer a question. you and mr. gruber don't need to sit beside each other because it is wearing off. number two how much money is paid to insurers under the cost sharing reduction program for fiscal year 2015 to date?

>> i don't have that information. >> are you not briefed with this? did you not get a spread cincinnati a monthly spreadsheet. >> i'd be glad to get you that information. >> that's mott any question. do you get a briefing on this. >> die get-door. >> do you get a briefing that resembles this where they're actually asking for it on a regular basis? >> die get briefed. >> do you listen? >> i try to listen. i have a lot of information to listen to. >> so do i. so do i. but when you're also brought here to -- >> i was not subpoenaed. >> you came voluntarily. thank you for that. >> thank you. >> but the problem here is there seems to be -- when we get here we only want to answer the questions we want to answer cannot questions that are part of your regular job. let continue on. the "wall street journal" reported that insurers participating in the 2015aca exchanges insisted their contracts contain a clause permitting termination of contract if the -- is it

accurate? >> there is information in the contract and i'll be glad to get you that. >> that would be yes? >> i believe i said yes. >> no, you didn't. who negotiated these contracts with the insurer? >> i didn't hear your mic on. >> done by staff and attorneys within cms. >> do you awe proof those. >> i do not approve individual contracts no. >> will you provide the names of those who negotiated the contracts with the attorneys. >> i'd be glad to get you information. >> and i'm going to ask the question, not to honestly be funny here but i do -- given the glai sher pace of response and the fact when you testified for energy and commerce they're festival waiting for numbers from you do we need to subpoena this information now? >> i believe i've gotten you information as you requested it. >> i never questioned information from you.

i'm looking at your history. >> this committee. >> so, will you get it in a timely mapper north bib click cal-within the next few days. >> i'll get you the information signs can. >> die need to subpoena them. >> you have nod needed to subpoena me in the past. >> we just have to wait forever. when were these contracts negotiated? >> these contracts were negotiated over the summer. i have to get you the specific dates. >> please include that in your information. did every insurer participating in the 2015aca changes receive such a clause in their contract? >> i believe the contracts were consistent but i'll get you that information. >> okay. will you provide a copy of all these contracts? >> i will work with you. i'll have to talk with our council, but unless there's a reason not to, yes, we'll -- >> and without being editorialized here, why would there not be a reason to provide these contracts. >> i don't know there is. i said i would work wife you --

work with you. >> maybe it's it's a disconnect -- i'm not trying to be argumentative. you actually do work for the government. you do work for an agency that is under jurisdiction of this committee, under the oversight provision. why would you even have to hesitate on providing contracts that are public moneys are spent on those committee? >> i don't think i would. i just ask i be able to ask that question. >> to who? you run the department. >> i'm not an attorney. >> well, that's not a bad or good thing. the question is, you run the department. >> i run cms, yes. >> how many attorney does you have working for you? besides the ones that came with you. >> i don't have attorneys here with me. >> maybe there's our problem. again, i'm not unsure why we can't answer that question. let me revert back. we determined you do get briefings on insurers asking for federal government to pay for

cost sharing reduction. cms asked insurers to submit spread sheatheds that contain this information. correct. >> that's correct. >> thank you. the amount of insurers asked the federal government to pay them thunder cost sharing reductions and individual line item on the spreadsheet. is that correct. >> i believe that is correct. >> thank you. wait, had one question. i want to go back to question. i want to know who made the decision not to request appropriations to cost sharing reduction program for fiscal year 2015? >> that is not within my purview. i can't answer that question. >> do you not have to adjust and spend the money out thereof me money supposedly appropriated for this program? >> i do not -- that is done through our national department. >> can you provide -- so would your financial department have participated in a decision not ask for appropriations in 2015 and. >> i don't have that. i'll get you that information. >> under your leadership, this is the adapt that is basically going rogue and doing contracts that don't report back to you.

our budget items. >> i'll be happy to get you that information. >> that mulls be hard to say every time. when i know you understand this. it must be that difficult. who did participate and will you provide those names? >> i have told you i'll get you that information. >> there is anyone outside that we need to ask? omb, treasury, white house, anyone who would determine not to ask for appropriations for this program in fiscal year 2015? >> once again i will go back and try to get you the information -- >> you have no idea when these mideastings took place. ...