we would do in a historical crime case. this is a dynamic challenge. as i have said to the fbi directors times two and to the leadership of the department of justice, if this matters as much as we say it does, we have to reject all convention. we have to let the limits of our imagination be the guide to where we go to deal with this difficult problem. you see because i believe that you have to understand my narrative about pittsburgh, which you can translate into your own narrative about where you reside. to appreciate how significant this really is. notwithstanding martin's provocative jab earlier today, pittsburgh is the center of the universe if you did not know that. we were the home of american industrial revolution. andrew carnegie started steel there. john rockefeller started oil there. if you go back and read the book

"titan," you can get a quick refresher on this. the polio vaccine was discovered in pittsburgh. much of organ transplant technology happened there. we are and have evolved into a medical, technical mecca. carnegie mellon is there. we have through westinghouse and others the -- three-quarters of the nuclear technology in this company. i haven't seen begun to talk about the steelers, the pirates and the penguins. you need to understand that this story can be told about any city in the country. but this was the story that was moving me in pittsburgh. because as a resident of pittsburgh and as a person from western pennsylvania, i have seen directly as we have responded to the challenges as we changed ourself from a rust belt city to an industrial

company. and what a factor cyber intrusions was to us. and it wasn't about us and law academics who work on this problem or the judiciary or the private sector partners or the great companies who have forged this new frontier in the internet like google and microsoft and others. it's about people in mckeesport in our valley who might lose their jobs, who might face economic distress because whether you are talking about recapturing the research development investment that our companies make which is stolen when we have ip state sponsored espionage or you talk about folks who might fit as described earlier the most vulnerable among us, seniors and children

who either have their retirement stolen or are exploited online in the most horrible way imaginab imaginable, this really matters. i'm very, very grateful for the partnership with all of you. i've been given this new responsibility to help coordinate the great efforts of the u.s. attorney component of the department of justice, but i'm here to assure you that as grave as this threat is over the course of the last 4 1/2 years i have been heartened by the great talent and commitment and will of the people who are working on it. and that now includes all of you. so thank you very much for attending today. look forward to working with you in the future. thank you. [ applause ] this month is the tenth anniversary of our sunday prime time program q & a.

we highlight authors, journalists, filmmakers and policy thinkers. a decade of compelling conversations, december 22 through the 26, at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. > jonathan gruber testified in front of the house oversight committee on his criticism of the rollout of the affordable care act and his belief that officials intentionally obscured details to enable passage by

congress in 2010. this hearing is four hours. >> the committee will come to order. without objection, the chair will be authorized to declare a recess at any time. oversight committee existed to secure two fundamental principals. first, americans have a right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent. second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect the rights. our responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. it's our job to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdog to deliver the facts to

the american people and bring reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is and has been our mission for four years that i have been honored to serve. before i begin with my opening statement, i want to make you aware in hopes that your people will deliver documents pursuant to a subpoena that expired -- that was due eight days ago related to the documents behind your coming before this committee and giving false and misleading testimony related to the so-called 7.3 million enrollment figure. we asked for and we received half of the documents and the documents that were excluded were the ones that created the talking points and the people who caused you to use inarct inarticulate language that allowed you to say 7.3 million

without disclosing that that included 400,000 dental plans. that was subpoenaed. it was clearly understood. last night we received a huge data dump and it was not in there. it makes it very difficult for us to go forward with some aspects of today's hearing, as you can imagine. it is clear that this hearing in no small part was not because of what obamacare is about, not about the healthcare, it's about honesty and transparency to the american people. today's hearing is likely the last full committee hearing of this congress. this committee has a primary obligation and has lived up to that obligation to look at government to make government

more transparent and accountable. and at times, members on both sides have helped in trying to create that transparency. but no government program needs increased transparency and accountability and honesty more than the affordable care act known as obamacare. it has proven time and time again to, in fact, have made false claims. every member on both sides can agree that the affordable care act or obamacare is a large, expensive program reliant on a complex network of government programs which significantly impact the lives of all americans. yet the history of design passage and implementation with the law is fraught with half truths and deceptions. here are just a few of the false claims the administration has made regarding obamacare. if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your

doctor, period. nothing in obamacare forces people out of their health plans. no change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans. healthcare inflation has gone down every year since the law, affordable care act, has been passed. it now has the lowest increases in healthcare cast in 50 years. to that we add, we have close to 7 million americans who have access to healthcare for first time because of medicaid expansion. if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. when trying to pass affordable care obamacare, the administration repeatedly claimed that the law's individual mandate was not a tax. however months after passing, the justice department argued the opposite, it was a tax.

one of our three witnesses this morning offered a simple answer to this change in position. >> this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure cbo did not score the mandate as taxes. so it's written to do that. in terms of subsidies, a law said healthy people will pay in -- healthy people will pay in, sick people -- it would not have passed. lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. call it the stupidity of the american voter, but that was really critical to getting the thing to pass. it's the second best argument. i wish mark was right and we could make it transparent. >> i wish it was right and we had made it all transparent. professor jonathan gruber is considered by many as the architect of obamacare. as a former administration

official put it, professor gruber was the man on obamacare, the guru of healthcare, the official we went on to say, i remember when i was at the white house, he was viewed as an important figure in helping to put obamacare together. no one can look at the amount of money he has been -- he was compensated for for his work on obamacare totaling millions of dollars and think our witness was anything but a critical player in the affordable care act. current administration officials, however, have attempted to distance themselves from professor gruber. ever since he stated and started telling the truth about the tactics used to pass this law. in fact, the center for medicare and medicaid services urged the

committee not to seat him with the administrator next to him. dr. gruber, we think you are right to be there. in fact, we believe that this is a perfect pairing. a pairing of individuals who are, in fact, responsible for what we know and don't know before, during and after the passage and implementation of the affordable care act. september 18, 2014, the administrator came before us and testified that, in fact, there were 7.3 million people enrolled in the -- and i quote this carefully, health insurance marketplace coverage. that tore toured language had not previously been used. and it followed a series of document requests after we were told trust us the numbers are good in which we discovered that, in fact, 7.3 million would

have to include a fairly large 400,000 individuals in more or less $50 dental plans. obviously when you say you met a goal and the difference between making a goal and not making a goal are plans that nobody would consider a key element of the affordable care act. hhs initially failed to provide any documents to explain how the numbers had been interpreted. on october 1, 2014, the committee requested the enrollment data underlying the 7.3 million announcement. our request were met with delays, run arounds that bordered on obstruction. after weeks of negotiations, cms finally provided the enrollment data printed on spreadsheets with -- for those who are my age will appreciate this. 6-point font, something not

readable even with reading glasses. when electronic copies were demanded and the data was delivered, oversight investigations discovered that all of the hundreds of spreadsheets were, in fact, password protected and locked. after further negotiation, we finally were able to receive the passwords and recognize that all along there had been a inherent deception. this was quickly discovered and would have been discovered by anybody simply by putting the spreadsheets in ascending order of dollars. on november 21, 2014, only after it was publically noted the committee discovered the administration was willing to acknowledge 393,000 dental plans in the figures released in september. hhs included dental plans in the enrollment figures not just once

about the twice. the agency included dental plan in its november enrollment figures and has now been forced to revise down to not greater the administration claims it made a mistake. however, there is great skepticism about that and particularly the term mistake when it appears as though instead hhs and cms were too clever in an attempt to inflate the numbers and say they met a goal. it is a small technical error i many ways whether you had 7.3 million or 6.7 million if, in fact, it's a matter of whether you made a goal or didn't make a goal. but when you doctor the books, add additional numbers and then use careful language so that you didn't lie but you did deceive,

that is exactly what we are concerned about here at this committee. the american people have a right to know the honest numbers. management has an obligation to know it if they are, in fact, going to be accountable to the taxpayers for doing their job and, in fact, the american people expect no less. professor gruber is often said in washington to be the definition of a gaff. that's when somebody accidentally tells the truth. you made a series of troubling statements that were not only an insult to the american people but revealed a pattern of intentional misleading the public about the true impact and nature of obamacare, which is in many ways -- in many ways you helped craft. today we will have an opportunity to ask you to apologize for your low opinion of the american people and hopefully apologize for the

false information on which the analysis of what the affordable care act was do was built leading to the disappointments we see here today. with that, i would recognize the ranking member for an opening statement is not here. all members will have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. we now go to our panel of witnesses. miss marilyn tavener and mr. jonathan gruber, a professor at m.i.t. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. would you please both raise your right hands -- stand and raise your right hand and take the oath. >> mr. chairman? >> just a moment. i will go through where i am, please.

do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record reflect the witnesses answers in the affirmative. for what purposes does the gentleman seek recognition? >> thank you. at this time, in the absence of the ranking member, may i ask that if we have a minority witness, mr. goldman, for whom we thank your indulgence. we would ask for convenience sake, since we have a small panel here that mr. goldman be added to the panel and be sworn in and testify at the same time. >> i appreciate your suggestion. he is not a government witness and not an expert in any of the facts being discovered today. we will leave him on the second panel. i thank you for your suggestion. you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee, i

appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and answer your questions about cms' continuing work to provide affordable, high quality healthcare to the americans we serve. in my previous -- >> ma'am. i appreciate if you pull the mike closer. thank you. sorry. >> in my previous appearance before your committee, i reported a number of americans that were enrolled in marketplace coverage and had paid their premiums that included medical and dental coverage. simply put, this was a mistake. some individuals with both medical and dental coverage were counted twice in the numbers. moving forward, only individuals with medical coverage will be included in our individual affected enrollment numbers. we are now providing weekly snapshots of the 2015 marketplace data, including the number of consumers who have submitted an application, contacted the call center or visited the website. we have also created a new data office and have named or first

chief data officer. this new office will help cms strengthen its processes and more broadly will help cms better harness and use our data resources to draw better care at a lower cost. while this mistake was regr regrettab regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that the affordable care act is working. we have 6.7 million americans enrolled in healthcare coverage and paying their premiums as of october 15th. the number of uninsured adult americans is down 26%. since the beginning of the open enrollment period, about 9.1 millione ed additional individu have enrolled. for the first year of a new program, this is a tremendous accomplishment. 2015 open enrollment is off to a solid start. because of new choices and more competition in the health insurance marketplace, many consumers are able to shop and find more affordable options in

the second year of the program. we have seen a 25% growth in the number of issuers participating in the marketplace which means that more than 90% of consumers will be able to choose from at least three or more issuers and over 60% of the marketplace enrollees are able to renew coverage at their middle level for less than $100 a month after tax credits. those already covered should come back to the marketplace to review their options for next year. people may find an option that is either more affordable or better suits their needs. we have improved the experience as well. the shopping and enrollment process is simpler, faster and more intuitive for consumers. with the new steam lined application for many consumers, we have reduced the number of screens from 76 down to 16 with fewer clicks to navigate through questions for most consumers. consumer interest is strong.

since open enrollment there have been over 765,000 plan selections, 48% of which are new consumers. over 1.5 million applications have been submitted and there have been more than 5 million website visits. the affordable care act is not just about coverage. in recent years, we have seen historically low growth in overall healthcare spending. just last week, cms office released their 2013 health expenditure report which at 3.6% is the lowest reported growth in health expenditures since the inception in 1960. while the recent slow cost growth has causes, reformed to the programs are a meaningful contributor to the gains and are improving quality as well. for example, preliminary estimates indicate that hospital-acquired infections fell by 17% from 2010 to 2013

resulting in 50,000 fewer admissions and over $12 billion in cost savings. i'm proud of our progress at cms. i'm proud of our team. they work hard every day to ensure better, safer and more affordable healthcare. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. before we go on, i recognize the ranking member for unanimous consent request. >> chairman, one of my members requested that we have additional witness to come on the panel. i would ask that unanimous consent -- ask the chairman to allow that to happen. >> are there any objections? >> i object. >> would you reserve for a moment? >> sure. >> let me ask the witnesses, do you have any objections to having -- i understand he is a waiter at a local restaurant who loves obamacare.

he is an independent consultant. they gave me a new title. do you have an objection to mr. goldman, an independent consultant, being on the panel with you? >> havei have no objection. >> that's good. he likes your stuff. >> mr. gruber, do you have a problem with an independent consultant being on the panel? then i have no objection. >> i withdraw my objection. >> hearing no objections, while they seat mr. goldman, i would ask the ranking member, since he was unavoidably detained, to do his opening statement. mr. cummings? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. before i begin, i know today is your last hearing. as chairman of the oversight committee i want to thank you. usa sa we have take then journey together. it has been a great journey. i said during your hanging of

your portrait right there -- >> thank you for saying i was hung. >> i believe that everybody who comes along your path comes along your path to make you better. and i will tell you, mr. chairman, you have made me a better person in so many ways. i want to thank you. i want to thank you for yourself. i want to thank you for your dedication. i want to thank you for taking the time to get to understand these issues in a very, very intricate way. a lot of people have not been in the meetings we have sat in where you -- i don't know how you do it. but you seem to be an expert on so many, many things. i know it's because it's your passion. so i want to -- i thank you. in a way i wish we had last week's hearing on the data act today, because it was such a positive note for

bipartisanship. it showed what we can do when we work together. i also want to thank you for inviting our witness, mr. goldman, who is here to testify about his own personal experience obtaining health insurance after we passed the affordable care act. i would like to welcome you, mr. goldman. mr. chairman, i know we may disagree about the affordable care act, but i hope we will do it in a respectful way based on substance and the evidence before the committee. in 2010, democrats in congress passed the landmark affordable care act to give millions of people across the country health insurance. we banned insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. we established a significant new measures to hold down healthcare costs. and we provided extra assistance

to those who needed it. today, based on the evidence before us, the aca is working. millions of people are now covered through the exchanges and medicaid expansion. according to the new england journal of medicine, the rate of uninsured has dropped by over 4 percentage points since last year. that's a 26% reduction in the ranks of the uninsured in one year. the evidence shows that the aca is bending the cost curve, the growth of national healthcare spending decreased to 3.6% last year. that's the lowest rate on record since the 1960s. in addition, reforms of healthcare delivery methods have saved $12 billion by reducing the number of hospital-acquired

conditions. despite these clear benefits, republicans have spent the last four years doing everything in their power to repeal the affordable care act. dilute it, undermine it and oppose it. this has become one of their chief political goals. they have taken 53 votes to repeal or weaken the law. last year, they shut down the government for 16 days in a failed attempt to delay its implementation. in our committee today we will hold our 29th hearing on the affordable care act. that's a stunning number, more than two dozen hearings but not one -- not one has helped to implement the aca more effectively or efficiency. it pains me to imagine the good we could have accomplished had we devoted that same amount of

time and resources to more constructive efforts. so i mourn what could have been. unfortunately, this hearing is no different. as far as i can tell, we are here today to beat up on jonathan gruber for stupid -- i mean absolutely stupid comments he made over the past few years and then drill and grill administrator tavener about what appears to be an inadvertent mistake in reporting aca enrollment numbers. this may be good political theater, but it will not help a single american get health insurance. it will not help a single person get well. it will not help a single person get the care that they need.

i'm extremely frustrated with dr. gruber's statements. they were irresponsible, incredibly disrespectful and did not reflect reality. and they were, indeed, insulting. i was in congress when this law was debated. dr. gruber does not speak for me or the chairman of the other committees who worked tirelessly on this bill. we debated this legislation for nearly a year before it was finally passed and signed by the president. we held 79 hearings and markups in the house of representatives alone. never once did i believe or did anyone suggest that we were somehow hiding our goals from the american people. but worst of all, dr. gruber's statements gave republicans a public relations gift in their

relentless political campaign to tear down the aca and eliminate healthcare for millions of americans. many republicans now allege some kind of democratic conspiracy citing the praise for dr. gruber's work from president obama and other democrats. but that, too, is completely wrong. let me highlight some additional praise dr. gruber received for his work. dr. gruber received the following thanks for his contributions to healthcare legislation. and i quote, jonathan gruber at m.i.t. devoted hours to an essential economic model. that statement was not from president obama but from the republican nominee for president in 2012, mitt romney. he thanked dr. gruber personally at the signing to ceremony for the romney okay care in massachs in 2006. a day earlier he wrote an op ed

in the wall street journal entitled, healthcare for everyone we found a way. this is what he wrote, and i quote. jonathan gruber of m.i.t., economic metric model of the population and with input from insurers, my in-house team crunched the numbers. governor romney said this and -- said this, too. because health insurance will now be affordable and subsidi subsidized, we insist that everyone purchase health insurance from one of our private insurance companies. so all massachusetts citizens will have health insurance. it's a goal democrats and republicans share, and it has been achieved by a bipartisan effort through market reform. end of quote. as i close, this is exactly what the aca was modelled on and was

supposed to be. governor romney was wrong about one thing. that goal was not shared by republicans in washington. for the last four years, house republicans have been trying to repeal the aca. but they hanever explained what they would replace it with, what they would replace it with. in a few weeks, republicans will control both houses of congress and they will be out of excuses. governing responsibly does not mean eliminating essential healthcare protections for our constituents, all of our constituents with no alternative. it means promoting the health and economic security of millions of americans who desperately need help. with that, mr. chairman, i want to thank you for your courtesy. i want to thank you for your service to this committee. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i would remind all members that the committee's jurisdiction

does not include any changes to the affordable care act other than those involving transparency and reporting. and that the committee's jurisdiction and its 29 hearings have been related not to whether we like the affordable care act or not but in fact, whether or not we are getting the transparency, proper reporting required for which this committee is known. with that i would have to ask mr. goldman to please rise to take the oath. raise your right hand, please. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? please be seated. let the record reflect our third witness answered in the affirmative. dr. gruber, it's your turn. thank you. >> chairman, ranking member and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify voluntarily today. i'm pleased to be able to address some statements i have made regarding the affordable care act and the reaction to and

interpretations of those statements. i'm a professor the economics at m.i.t. i'm not a politician nor a political adviser. over past decade, i have used an economic microsimulation model to help a number of states and the federal government. i've had the privilege of working for democratic and republican administrations on healthcare reform efforts. i worked with governor romney's administration and the massachusetts legislature to model the impact of governor romney's health reform legislation. i later served as a consultant to the u.s. department of health and human services and provided similar support to both the administration and to congress through economic microsimulation modelling of the affordable care act. i did not draft governor romney's health plan and i was not the architect of president obama's healthcare plan. after the passage of the aca, i

made speeches endeavoring to explore the laws from the perspective of an economist. a number of videos have emerged. excerpts i'm shown making a series of glib, thoughtless and insulting comments. i apologize for the videos. but the attention paid to the videos has made me realize that a fuller accounting is necessary. i would like to begin by apologizing for offending comments i have made. some n some cases i made glib comments. i'm not an expert on politics. in other cases i made mean and insulting comments which are uncalled for in any context. i apologize for conjecturing with the tone of expertise and for doing so in such a disparaging fashion. it's never appropriate to make oneself seem more important or smarter by demeaning others.

i knew better, i know better, i'm embarrassed and i'm sorry. in addition to i apologizing for my unacceptable remarks, i would like to clarify some misconceptions about the content and context of my comments. let me be very clear. i do not think that the affordable care act was passed in a non-transparent fashion. the issues i raised in my comments such as redistribution of risk through insurance market reform and the structure of the cadillac text were roundly debated before the law was passed. reasonable people can disagree about the merits of the policies. it's completely clear that these issues were debated during the drafting and passage of the aca. i would like to clarify some misperceptions about my january 2012 remarks concerning the availability of tax credits in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges. the portion of the remarks that has received so much attention lately omits a critical component of the context in

which i was speaking. the point i believe i was maying was about the possibility that the federal government for whatever reason might not create a federal exchange. if that were to occur and only in that context then the only way that states could guarantee that their citizens would receive tax credits would be to set up their own exchange. i have a longstanding and well documents belief that health reform legislation in general and the aca in particular must include mechanisms for residents in all states to obtain tax credits. my simulation model expressly modelled for the citizens of all states to be eligible for tax credits whether served by a state or federal exchange. i'm not an elected official nor nor am i a political official. i ran a microsimulation model to represent republican and democratic politicians and their advisers understand the impact that their policies would have on healthcare systems. the recent response to my

comments exceeds the relevance and my role in healthcare reform. i behaved badly. i will have to live with that. but my own arrogance is not a flaw in the affordable care act. the aca is a milestone accomplishment for our nation that has provided millions of americans with health insurance. our country is embarking on a second open enrollment period that will provide new opportunities for these individuals and millions more to choose the insurance plan that works for them. while i will continue to reflect on the causes of my own insensitivity, i hope that our country can move past the distraction of my misguided comments and focus on the opportunities this law provides. thank you. >> thank you. mr. goldman? >> thank you, members, especially chairman and ranking member for inviting me to share my story with you today. i am one of the millions of americans who thanks to the

affordable care act have been able to pursue goals free from the financial and physical implications of staggering expensive health insurance or in many cases no coverage at all. these reforms have helped ensure many americans won't have to weigh debt or something as simple as food for their children against access to the most base ic healthcare. i hope my words serve as a reminder of why the aca has improved the well-being of individuals and families across the country. i grew up outside of boston and stayed in new england for college. my 20s were a decade of exploration and change. in that decade, i had the freedom to switch careers twice, experience love and heart break and revel in excitement and opportunity. at the same time, i watched friends become burdened with unforeseen medical emergencies and forgo access to care. i'm now 33 and have lived in

washington, d.c. for 11 years. i'm healthy, have low cholesterol, i get exercise. i am doing pretty well. when i turned 26 i decided to abandon a career in non-profit fund-raising. this decision was bolstered by the optimism of a 20-something living in one of the most inspiring cities in the world. i didn't consider that because i have two common and manageable pre-existing conditions i would be forced to navigate an unfriendly health insurance marketplace. i found great satisfaction in making a living working in the restaurant industry. i worked full-time, then as a restaurant with more than 50 blees, i was not covered benefits. i ventured out into the individual market and applied to several brand name companies. one after another they turned me down. ultimately one company offered me a plan at $450 a month.

disheartened from the prior rejections i enrolled even though they refused to cover prescriptions or office visits. i conducted a cost benefit analysis and decided that i would rather be underinsured than not insured at all. my two years with this insurer felt like an unending morbid exceedingly expensive joke. claims were routinely rejected due to processing errors, usually with no explanation. still it was better than nothing. then i received a notification that as of january 2014, my plan would be discontinued. i will admit i wasn't looking forward to participating or to going forward in the process of enrolling through the d.c. healthcare exchange as many other people can agree with probably. but despite all of the glitches and dead ends being reported by the media, i applied. i contacted a navigator who referred me to a broker. and he answered the many complex questions i had about each policy i was considering. with his help and at no cost to

me, it took just under an hour to sign up for a ppo plan and in terms of premiums alone, this reduced my costs by 60%, which means i'm saving over $200 each month. i'm able to keep providers with whom i built relationships over the years. all my pre-existing conditions are covered. have i had lower da to day out of pocket costs to manage my conditions. i estimate that i have saved more $5,000 in all, which in addition to my part-time work as a waiter has maud my decision to pursue my career as an independent consultant more viable. i believe and isn't that american. thanks to the aca i'm able to take control over my own future instead of finding and staying at an undesirable job because i can't sacrifice my health insurance. i no longer feel marginalized. i no longer need to resolve to inadequate coverage.

late they are week i have an point to look into my options for 2015. i have the confidence i will shop for a plan without fear of rejection or exclusion for coverage. i can do the research to find a plan that will meet any needs. finally when my old plan was cancelled, i thought i was going to get similar coverage at the same cost. the unexpected thrill i felt after i enrolled was not only because i'm covered but i'm participating in history. at the end of the day, i'm an ordinary man with a good education and from a health family. if the affordable care act can help me, i believe it can help anyone. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. mr. goldman, are you receiving a subsidy at all on that silver plan you chose? >> no, i'm not. >> i'm glad you found part-time work even though in you past you found full-time work. you testified before the committee and you used the

terminology enrolled in the healthcare insurance market coverage. is that the appropriate normal way you have always referred to enrollment numbers? >> i don't know that i have an appropriate -- i've calledd it million. >> i think had i known that we had double counted the dental, i would have corrected that for the september hearing. mistake. >> no. i'm asking questions about the mistake. you gave what would be considered by anyone to be false and misleading testimony because you were given data that included 400,000 dental plans. cms had previously released separate numbers, far greater numbers for dental at the time

and healthcare and as those numbers went down, they got combined and the language got changed to enrolled in the health insurance marketplace coverage. the question is, did you have anything to do with the use of that term, and were you aware -- it's a two-part question. each is a yes or no. were ayou aware dental was included in your testimony in. >> i was not aware dental was included in my testimony. >> were you in any way explained why the usz of enrolled in the health insurance marketplace coverage was the term you read in your statement? >> no. >> thank you. mr. gruber i have been accused i'm going to berate you to something. i hope that you won't feel that way when i get done. night before last, i was at the kennedy center honors where they honored tom hanks, famously, forrest gump. the ultimate in successful

stupid man. are you stupid? >> i don't think so, no. >> does m.i.t. employ stupid people? >> not to my knowledge. >> okay. so you are a smart man who said some, as the ranking member said, some really stupid things. and you said the same, is that correct? >> the comments i made were really inexcusable. >> and i will leave aside the political observations. but you did say in your -- in the video replayed and everyone has seen parts of it, you did say that in fact, if people knew the whole truth they wouldn't have voted for this. that, in fact, the direction you were going, the reality -- specifically i want to -- mr. goldman is a poster child for this. he has a plan that's relatively inexpensive. but the shifting of some people to pay more than they previously did is -- healthcare went up in price. for mr. goldman to get a

reduction, somebody else got not only an increase but an increase to offset his decrease. that was what you were talking about. isn't it true that in fact between the taxes and increases for some, that's part of the plan to reduce for people like mr. goldman? >> the first of all, i made a critical mistake in trying to conjecture with a tone of expertise -- >> you're an expert on the analysis of the numbers and where the costanalysis. i'm asking you as dr. gruber a smart man, a smart man at a great institution, that has collected over -- over $4 million in various fees and so on, your analysis, isn't it true that in order for mr. goldman to get his reduction -- he is very happy about it. that in fact it was cost shifting, including the so-called cadillac plans? isn't that true? >> the affordable care act set up insurance exchanges which

pooled risks for the health and and less healthy. when you account for tax credits, people are paying less for health insurance. >> i'm a taxpayer. trust me, people are not paying less. people like me are paying more for those because taxes are a cost that's paid. total cost did not go down. cost shifting occurred in your model, isn't that true? >> the amount that individuals have to pay for health insurance on average fell in my model. >> well, but it didn't fall in reality. let me just ask one question. this may be the tougher question for you. you said in these video comments that essentially you had to deceive in order to get this passed. your models, the 4 million plus dollars that you and m.i.t. receives, includes money personally to develop and to provide those models, if deception was part of the process by your own statements, why should we believe your

analysis? why should we not demand to go into the micro-economic analysis and find out whether, in fact, the $4 million in services you delivered were accurate or whether the >> first of all, the amount of money to which you refer has been greatly overstated. it refers to grants that were received by research institutions and others which i received a small fraction. second of all, no one has ever questioned the quality or integrity of the modeling. the fact i -- >> mr. gruber, i'm questioning it in light of your statements and that's why i'm asking. shouldn't we question, or at least have independent analysis of the numbers you delivered before -- actually to massachusetts for that matter, too, but to the federal government based on your statements that, in fact, if people knew the truth, they wouldn't -- that there was a deception in your own thing. and it's all i want. i want to go to the ranking member. but is there any reason that you would not approve the idea that there should be independent validation of the numbers you used in light of the statements

that we've seen you made? >> i think that the quality of my numbers should not be reflected by comments i made where i was conjecturing outside of my area of expertise. at the same time my models has always been very transparent. i've posted information about my model and i'm happy to ask questions -- answer questions about the model and how it works. >> thank you. i hope that this committee in the next congress will insist that there be an independent analysis of whether, in fact, that model would withstand the scrutiny of an audit. with that, i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. gruber, as i mentioned in my opening statement, i was very frustrated when -- with your statements. and i got to tell you, they were insulting. they were especially harmful because they gave the opponents of the aca a pr gift. man, you did a great job. you wrapped it up with a bow.

this has nothing to do with the substance of this issue. it's just something critics will link to the aca in future debates. now i have to say, i listened very carefully to your testimony because i wanted to hear exactly what you were going to say. a lot of times witnesses who come before the committee avoid apologizing. so you deserve some credit at least for taking this head-on. and taking responsibility for your actions. i know you believe in the aca and you also worked with governor romney on his health care bill. is that right? >> yes. >> so my question is this. sitting here today, what do you say to those people who are trying to eliminate the aca? and who are quoting your statements as a reason to repeal health care for millions of americans, and many of my

constituents and people who are watching us right now on c-span? what do you say to them? >> i would say that i made a series of inexcusable and offensive comments, where i conjectured with a tone of expertise to try to make myself others, and i apologize for that. but that my flaws as a private citizen, not a politician, not a political adviser, my flaws as a private citizen should not reflect on the process by which the aca was passed, or the success of that law itself. >> now, administrator tavenner, you've been before our committee before, and i have complimented you on your efforts. and i do still believe that you are a great public servant. on november 20th, hhs reported that it had overstated the numbers of enrollees by about 380,000. chairman talked about that in his opening statement, and he just asked you about it. this was because the hhs included people with dental

coverage, too, and essentially double-counted them. how could you -- how could that happen? i mean you knew everybody. they know everybody's got a microscope on the program. so i'm just curious. >> sir, it is a great question. it was inexcusable mistake. and i think, in looking at payments made instead of unique individuals, we counted individuals who had both medical and dental. i believe we have put processes in place to prevent that from happening again. but it should not have happened the first time. >> but you understand that the mistake has the same effect as dr. gruber's statement. same thing. it gives aca opponents a pr gift that they can use on cable shows and elsewhere to attack the aca and it's an unforced

political error. now i have to ask you for the going to ask the same thing, you're under oath. and just tell me, did you intend to deceive this committee or the american people when you provided those enrollment numbers? was that your intention? >> i did not. >> and do you have any reason to believe that anyone on your staff tried to deceive the american people, or was this error inadvertent? >> i do not believe anyone tried to deceive the american people. and i believe the error was inadvertent. 6.7 million is a very large number. we are pleased with that number. this was an inadvertent mistake, for which i apologize. >> as a result of the -- now mr. goldmann, i want to thank you for being here today. and i'm glad you're working. and i'm glad you're pursuing your dreams. and that's a good thing. as a result of the aca, it is a fact that insurance companies

can no longer discriminate against people like you. deny you coverage or charge exorbitant rates because of your pre-existing conditions. how do you feel about that? and i think it's important for people to know what that means. you know, we hear a lot of times the negatives, particularly on this committee. but it's good to have somebody who has benefited from this. can you tell us how that makes you feel? >> right. i -- this isn't something i had thought about before. all this. before i really left an employer that gave me benefits, because it wasn't something i thought was an issue. and i think i took that for granted. and i think a lot of people take that for granted. the health care coverage i had growing up and as a young adult in my 20s was great. and then when i decided to pursue something different,

something of my own making, something very typically american, and i no longer had coverage, i -- it came as a shock. so to suddenly have that inability to have my own little pre-existing conditions that many people have, and not be covered, was -- was a very strange and unusual feeling to me. and it was not a good one. so, to be able to enroll through the aca, and to still pay my part, but to know that i'm not being discriminated against based on something that millions of americans have, it doesn't matter what they are, particularly, it was a relief. and i didn't realize how much of a relief it would be until i actually got enrolled with a good health care provider, as opposed to someone -- or a provider that provided inadequate benefits. >> the last question.

what was wrong with your insurance before you got this insurance here? you had previous insurance, is that right? >> yes. my preceding insurance. >> yes. >> yes. well, the premiums were almost twice as high, which in and itself, you know, it's a supply/demand issue, i assume. i'm not an economist, unfortunately. although i can make guesses. but i will say that the coverage i had, despite -- regardless of how much i was paying on a monthly premium, was insultingly inadequate. and not just because of what it wouldn't cover. but because of how difficult it was to process claims and how difficult it was to get any sort of response from the company itself. so, yes, prescriptions, and office visits related to my pre-existing conditions were uncovered, and that required a lot of out-of-pocket benefits, but also even the stuff that was covered was very difficult to get reimbursed for. >> thank you.

>> thank you, and with the ranking member's indulgence, ms. tavenner, i failed to only ask one thing. can your staff provide any of the information related to those -- the preparation of those talking points that was in the subpoena? that was part of what was asked for and not delivered. >> so, we will -- i know that we supplied some information to you late yesterday evening. i will go back and work with the staff to see what else we can get you. try to work with you. >> well, the discovery asked for information related to the false statement that was made by you, certainly inadvertently, you've called it a mistake, but we asked for the creation of it so we could see who created it, who put the numbers together. you know, it took a staffer 20 minutes to find the error once  we got the passwords to unlock this it wasn't hard to find. so, the question is, and i'll be brief, do -- can you ask your people to the extent that it's already been pulled, and we believe if we issue a subpoena it's already been pulled, our people worked with your people,

they knew this is what we wanted, could we have it? because we have people on both sides of the dais who don't have those facts, that would be the last hearing of this year. so i appreciate that you want to get it to us in the future. but, it's crippling to a great extent to have a hearing in which the main subject of the hearing, which is how did we get misled, and who was involved in it in the process of creating those talking points, we don't have it. so that the question is, can you instruct your people to the extent that there has been any pulling of that document to get it over to us so that people down the dais can ask those questions? i know mr. dowdy likes working off of facts, not fiction. >> yes, sir. we will work with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> 30 seconds. mr. chairman, one thing i failed to say. i wanted to when i was complimenting you earlier -- >> you're not taking any of that back, are you? >> oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. i wanted to take a moment, mr. chairman, to express my deep appreciation and respect for

your staff, and for my staff. i know a lot of people will be moving on to new jobs. but these are folks that work night and day trying to present the very best that they can to this committee and to the american people. and i'll take a moment to thank them for all that they have done. this is a key time in american history and i appreciate it. thank you. >> well, thank you. and because of your wise comments, i'm going to pile on just in one sentence, mr. cummings, we do have the best staffs on the hill. they do countless thousands of hours of deposition and transcribed interviews. they pore over more documents than any other committee of the congress, and they're able to qualitatively search for and find in i.g. reports, in freedom of information reports, and obviously in working with whistle-blowers, things that no other committee could find. and i think that that's a genuine statement for both sides.

there's no better set of committee staff than what we are honored to have. and i thank you for bringing that up. we now go to the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. gruber, you've said that your statements were inexcusable and insulting. i certainly understand when someone gets caught saying something as inflammatory as what you've said how you might want to recant it. however, some of the things that you said were substantive based. and although they may be inexcusable and insulting in that they were said, in the end, they may be true. and i want to walk you through some of the statements that you made that were substantive in nature, rather than the statements that you made about the american voter. now you've said that you did complex microsimulation modeling. it sounds like a relatively basic model to me. you take from one and you give to another. it's a basic equation of welfare

-- wealth redistribution, and that's called a tax. and you've made many statements about the obamacare plan as being a tax and i want to go being a tax and i want to go through those. now, i want to remind you, this is not the casual conversation that you've had in the conferences where you've insulted the american voter. this is actually a hearing where you took an oath. you said on march 16th, 2011, the only way we could take it on was first by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans, whether or not a tax on people and we all know it's a tax on people who hold those insurance plans. a tax. on january 18th you said if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange that means your citizens don't get the tax credits but your citizens will pay the taxes that support the bill. a tax. october 30th, 2012, you said we just taxed the insurance companies. they passed it on in higher prices that offset the tax breaks we get. it's very clear, you know, and that's when you went on and insulted the american voter as to the fact that they couldn't understand that basic equation. then on october 17th, you said this bill was written in a

tortured way to make sure cbo did not score the mandate as taxes. if cbo scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. i know mr. gruber that you believe that your statements were inexcusable and insulting but they do appear to be true. you're not here recanting today your statements with respect to the tax aspect of obamacare, are you? >> i'm here today to say that any conjectures i made about political -- >> this is not a conjecture, mr. gruber. i mean conjecture is i believe it may have been, someone may have been thinking, perhaps they were, perhaps it was. this is your straight-up statements. these are not conjecture. is it your purpose today to recant obamacare as a tax? >> it is my purpose today to come forward and elaborate and straighten out the interpretation of a series of comments that i made and to apologize -- >> excellent, let's do that then. let's clarify it. mr. gruber, you made these statements, did you not? >> if -- i don't recall exactly. >> you don't recall. one of them we actually saw on video. do you recall that one? >> yeah. >> right.

okay. well, these statements, we'll enter them for the record, and i can't imagine how you don't recall your own statements, because the american voter has seen them over and over again as you've called them stupid. do you deny making these statements, mr. gruber, even though you don't recall them? do you deny calling obamacare a tax? >> if you're reading my actual quotes, then i don't deny it. >> i'm reading your actual quotes. >> then i don't deny it. >> okay. so you're not here to recant it or to deny it? >> i'm here to explain that a number of those comments were made in a tone of expertise that i don't have when i was talking about political -- >> mr. gruber, do you know what a tax is? i mean you do have expertise in economics. you know what a tax is? >> yes. >> okay. so you would not deny today that in these statements that you made that obamacare is a tax, would you? >> obamacare is a large piece of legislation with many parts. >> and is one of those parts a tax, mr. gruber? >> there are some taxes in obamacare, yes. >> well the president, as you know, argued that obamacare was not a tax until it went before

the u.s. supreme court as to whether or not obamacare was a tax and then the administration argued that it is a tax in order to be able to save it from being declared unconstitutional. so, i would assume that you agree with the u.s. supreme court that obamacare provisions includeta. s, right? >> the u.s. supreme court ruled on a particular provision of obamacare -- >> you do not disagree with them, do you? >> i'm sorry. >> you don't disagree with them that there are elements of obamacare that constitute a tax? >> i don't agree with their conclusion about the mandate. >> excellent. interesting. different than what you said at these hearings. now i have a question for you that i'd like you to think back. you said i mean this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure cbo did not score the individual mandate as taxes. did you ever speak to anyone in the administration who acknowledged that to you or who explained that to you or who assigned a problem with you with the construct of that we have to draft this in a tortured way so

that we make sure cbo did not score the individual mandate as taxes? and you are under oath, mr. gruber. did anybody in the administration have that conversation with you? >> that was an inexcusable term -- >> i'm not asking you about how you believe whether you should have said that or not. it's a factual statement you're making. did anybody in the administration ever have that conversation with you? >> i do not recall anyone using the word tortured, no. >> did they have the conversation with you that it had to be drafted in a way that the cbo did not score the individual mandate as taxes? anyone in the administration acknowledge it, explain it, or assign aspects to you within that construct? >> i don't -- >> you're under oath. >> i honestly do not recall. >> mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you. we now go to the gentle lady from new york. miss maloney. >> thank you. thank you. i want to remind my colleagues that passage of the affordable care act, was, in fact, an open

and extremely transparent process. we had here in the house over 79 hearings, almost 100 hours of hearings. and prior to the affordable care act, we have to remember that there were roughly 48 million americans, including 2.6 million new yorkers, who were uninsured. and there is even more good news coming out of new york, where insurance rates for individuals are more than 50% lower than they were before the state's marketplace plan began. and i -- i want to say that there have been many reports that have said that the acc contributed to the slow growth rates in national health expenditures over the past few years. the recent report from the national health expenditure report showed that spending grew by just 3.6% in 2013, and that was the lowest rate of growth since 1960.

so that is all good news for the american people. dr. gruber, i'd like to ask you, do you support the affordable health care plan? do you believe that it's sound public policy that helps people? >> yes, i do. >> thank you. >> and administrator tavenner, i represent a large number of hospitals. and i understand that because of the affordable care act hospitals are projected to save $5.7 billion in uncompensated care costs this year alone. how has the aca helped to save hospitals money and incentivize effective patient care? >> i think the aca's worked in a couple of ways. obviously, to increase the number of uninsured helps hospitals from the standpoint of their bad debt and other, particularly in rural america, where they're very reliant on the number of insured in small volume markets, particularly. so i think that's the first

area. the second area, is we've made a point of tying payment to quality. so as you know, we are paying related to whether it's hospital acquired conditions, readmissions, or actually having hospitals report their quality instead of paying purely for volume or per procedure. so i think those are two of the ways that it's helped. and i think hospitals in general are reporting, particularly on the for-profit side, better earnings as a result of some of these changes. >> well, many people have commented on the fact that we have the lowest rate of growth in health care costs since 1960. can you elaborate on how the aca is slowing down these costs? how is that happening? what is contributing to it in the past few years? >> if you look at going back to the hospital issue, we've certainly seen it in terms of number of admissions and readmissions to hospital.

the hospitals have -- growth rate has been flat, almost to the point of being negative. on the outpatient side, we've seen it in some of the growth rates around physician, physician visits. i think in almost every area except pharmaceutical we've seen a slowing in what has been the normal health expenditure rate. >> and could you comment on the affordable care act's payment and delivery reforms? and give an explanation. many people attribute that as a factor in lowering costs. >> yes. i think the biggest point that we've been able to do starting first with hospitals, but now we've expanded it to physicians and other part "b" settings, whether it's skilled nursing facilities or home health or otherwise, has been to move from a per procedure or a volume orrented payment to a payment that's tied to quality and outcome measures. and i think that has been the biggest change. >> are the affordable care act

reforms an important contributing factor in improvements that have been reported in adverse drug events, falls, other complications, as well as a fall of 8% in readmission rates for medicare patients? >> yes, it has been. certainly there's more work to do. and we'll continue to do work through the innovation center and through the medicare area and medicaid, as well. >> do you believe that these reforms in medicare to cut costs, and improve quality are having a spillover effect throughout the entire health care system? and if so, how? >> yes. in fact, we actually work closely with -- we try to align medicare, medicaid, and the private insurance market, and we work closely with the issuers to make sure that physicians and hospitals are working from one set of quality criteria. so we're trying to work together. >> well, i think this is all good news for the american consumer and for health care in our country. >> thank you. >> with that we go to the

gentleman from florida. mr. mica. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'll thank you also for your service. great job on this committee, and it's a tough task. miss tavenner, when we started all of this, we had, i thought -- i heard between 44 and 45 million people that were uninsured. that was just a general figure i heard. is that what you would estimate? >> i don't have that number -- >> okay. you should have the number, particularly in your position. but we'll just say 44. i'll take the lower number. >> all right. >> now you came and you gave us some statistics, last may, 7.3 million signed up. and then that was revised. and you apologized today for the -- the error that at least you claim it. that's 6.9 million people,

approximately. there are somewhere between 4 million and 5 million people who had insurance before we had obamacare that lost their insurance coverage. that's the estimate i've heard. would you agree with that? >> i don't know that number. >> okay. well, again, i think you should because this is important. the whole thing is how many people are we covering? if we have 44 million, and you had 4 million or 5 million people that were insured, i'm one of the people. my -- one reason you probably don't have more admissions is my deductible is three times as much. my premiums have gone up. the premiums i would say for most americans listening or participating have gone up. unless you're involved in some other health care system, your premiums have gone up. we've seen an exception. i have family who've had pre-existing condition, and

actually i've seen what they're doing. they're gaming the system. they get the service, and then they drop the care. so, that's also gone down as far as admissions. one reason for less admissions, and less spending. dr. gruber, you're one of the architects of this plan? >> i was an economic -- >> modeling. you did the modeling? you were a contractor? >> yes. >> one of, i understand, about 60 contractors? what did you -- what was your payment for your contract work with the hhs? >> i was paid less than $400,000. >> $400,000. and i heard that was a sole source contract, too? nice way to go. was that a sole source? >> i -- i don't exactly know. >> well, did you compete, or did you have -- you got a so source

contract, i'm told. >> i -- >> okay, i'll leave it at that. you got a sole source contract according to the information i have. nice way to go. the other thing is, then you went out to about eight states. did you have contracts with a number of states afterwards? >> yes, i worked with a number of states afterwards. >> and i heard you got between $200,000 and $400,000 a pop from them. my estimate that i've been told by staff is you took down about $2.5 million in this? >> the number -- >> all the money from health care from your involvement, again, about eight states. am i right? >> i don't recall the exact number of states. >> you can't recall. well, again, i think it would be helpful if you could supply the committee the amount of money, and i'm told it's over $2.5 million. you're just one of the vendors. some of them had contracts for more than $1 billion. but the whole thing gets back to people that we have that are still uninsured.

we have, according to the document i got, 41 million people still don't have health care. would you agree with that number? >> i don't know which document you're referring to. >> the latest -- the document that we had presented to us as 41myon americans still don't (juq" s between 3 million and 4 million at billions of dollars of cost, raised most people's premiums -- >> i think if you look at it, outside sources, they would tell you that the uninsured rate -- >> we have over 40 million people without health insurance. this isn't a success in my estimation. i'd like to get and divide the billions of dollars we've spent on this program, the consultants who took advantage of it, and enriched themselves, and we still have 40-some million people. and we can address pre-existing conditions, mr. goldmann, and

miss tavenner, dr. gruber. we can also increase the age to 26 for coverage, some of the things that were done. and positive things that i think needed to be done. but do we need -- do we need the bureaucracy, do we need the people who have fed off the public trough in the billions of dollars? one of the contractors that i looked at in a previous hearing had gotten a contract for over a billion dollars, and people supposedly came to work on verifying information, and never -- never worked. so people were paid not to work. people were paid to help design the system. and then profited and took the money away. to me, that's not a very good story. yield back the time. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. gruber, when you signed your truth in testimony form, you used an exhibit "b" and then you didn't use our form we provided. as a result, we don't have that

revenue, which is the state revenue is essentially federal revenue we provided grants. so would you agree to supplement your exhibit "b" so that we would have on your truth in testimony your state revenue that would have also -- you would have also received, since ultimately it's affordable care act related? >> i'm sure my counsel would be happy to take that up with you. >> well, actually i was asking, would you agree to provide it? >> as i said, i'm sure that's something that you can discuss with my counsel. >> so you're not agreeing to provide it? >> i'm not agreeing or disagreeing. i'm saying that's something that -- >> would you confer with your counsel, please? it's a requirement before you testify, and as we reviewed your exhibit "b," because you didn't use our form and go down it, we don't have all of your income. and since that's become a factor here, would you please -- we'll take a moment. we'll take just a short break. provide with your counsel to see whether you can affirmatively answer that.

>> my counsel has informed that my disclosure is in compliance with the house committee rules and if there's any additional questions, he'd be happy to answer them. >> okay. we'll do some -- >> mr. chairman, a question then that the witness provide the committee with the amount of money received from the federal government and any other health care payments that he received since the beginning. >> i apologize. this is a technical rule of the committee, folks. >> it's a simple request. can he provide us that? >> and once again, i -- the committee is welcome to work with my counsel on that. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. jordan? >> why doesn't he just tell us? how much money did you get from the state taxpayers and the federal taxpayers? he's under oath. why doesn't he tell us how much he got paid by the taxpayers? >> does he have a job? >> we don't have to wait for him to send something to us. he should be able to tell us. how much did the taxpayers pay

him? >> again, we have a witness under oath. >> okay. i'm going to -- i'm going to go on to other questioning, and we will see what we can get as a further determination. but it is at this point i'm being advised that this is not an accurate and full disclosure. so we do disagree with your counsel's interpretation. >> chairman -- >> mr. cummings, of course. >> just one thing. maybe, mr. chairman, during the course of this hearing, you can confer with counsel at some point. >> that's what i'm going to do. i'm going to go on with the hearing and we'll try to do this behind the scenes because i don't want to delay the hearing for what has proven to be -- and mr. mica, i will seek additional time for you if we can get the information. >> thank you. >> mr. norton is recognized for five minutes. >> excuse me, i want to thank you mr. chairman. again for your friendship, for your service, and for the respect you have shown for the

american citizens who live in the district of columbia, demand to be treated as free and equal americans, and you have always done that. i appreciate your work on this committee. very difficult committee, and i sympathize. dr. gruber, i accept your apology. i'm not going to question you further. your statements invite acts of demagoguery. you will hear enough of those. i decline to participate. ms. tavenner, the 400,000 difference, 400,000 difference is trumpeted as if it were worth hiding so small an amount. when the affordable health care act greatly exceeded our expectations in the numbers that would sign up so that all i can say is if the administration was going to fudge it, i certainly hope they would not have been so amateurish.

and i think the american people will understand how one could confuse people who signed up for dental care as you just looking at people who signed up and people who signed up, period. because those were not the distinctions we were looking for at the time. mr. goldmanf, you are a constituent of mine. i appreciate that you stepped forward. i do want to say to you, the chairman said something about cost sharing in his preface to questioning you, but you had testified that you were not being subsidized. >> that's correct. >> if that is the case, you are like millions of other young people who got lower cost insurance simply because you're young and not because any cost was shifted to you. that is the very nature of insurance. now, i'd like to ask, i know miss, tavenner, that this hearing is taking place when we are early in the new enrollment

system, enrollment period, i'm sorry. and i thank you for coming at such a busy time. you had a diet, the principal deputy administrator, i'm sorry, not your deputy but the principal deputy administrator is quoted as saying the vast majority of shoppers had a positive experience with health care gov. is that your understanding so that needs to be out here given the fau pas of the first few months? >> yes, ma'am. our second enrollment period has been much smoother, obviously, but we have been able to talk with some consumers. we've also been able to meet weekly with issuers to ask them what they're seeing from a consumer perspective, as well. and so far, the enrollment process has been easy by folks' terms. i'm sure it's not perfect. we still have room for

improvement. >> are you doing the kinds of customer -- customer -- that you can quantify, customer experience that you can quantify as to what the experience has been so you'll be able to say that at the end of this period? >> we are. it's a little early because obviously, we're just three weeks in, but we are doing surveys, both through the call center and surveys through healthcare.gov. >> that will be very important because will you such a poor start. >> we will share that information. >> now, i understand that you can now handle=8gñ a quarter of million concurrent users. is that the case? >> yes, in our testing, that is what we aspired to and we were able to end in testing to handle that type of volume, why he. >> i have some numbers here that open enrollment in 2014, more

than 1.5 million americans submitted applications for coverage and that 765,000135 individuals selected a plan. how does that compare, if you have any figures with the first few weeks of open enrollment in 2013? >> well, as you you might remember in the first few weeks, we were dealing with a website that was far from ideal. so our numbers were very low. we are pleased with the numbers in the first three weeks, but i think we know by one year's experience that individuals will wait until deadlines to sign up so we are looking for. >> and what is that deadline? >> the first deadline is december 15th. so this coming weekend we think will be high volume and then again february 15th, when open enrollment closes for 2015. >> i would like in, light of how easy it is to make -- to make errors that you will then be

called on, in september, it you testified before this committee and you pledged to address at that time 22 technical recommendations that the gao had made to improve the security of the website. and that is always a concern. were these 22 recommendations addressed before the beginning of open enrollment this year? >> yes, they were. we completed our work on all 22 of those recommendations. and then there were six other categories. and we've completed the work in that area. probably the only thing that is not totally complete is the operating agreement with the -- with opm and with the peace corps. we have a contractual agreement, but we were going through a full contracting process an that's under way. >> as of now. >> i think the gentle lady's time has expired. weep now go to mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

the ranking member said that these are just mistakes, they're just unforced errors. i think the american people would say something completely different. i would say these are not mistakes or unforced errors. this is intentional deception and it's not nothing new. if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. premiums are going to go down. premiums are going to go down $2500 on average. the website will work. the website's secure. cn miss tavenner says they have 7.3 million enrollees. they forgot to count 300,000 dental plans in that number and then we get to the mr. grubber. mr. grubber testified before congress about obamacare and didn't disclose that he was being paid by the obama administration. that's deception at its highest form. and then of course, we have the videos, the now famous videos where mr. grubber used taxpayer dollars to deceive taxpayers and then when obamacare became law,

he made fun of them and insulted them. by the way, mr. grub esh, back to the question we had discussion on earlier. how much were you paid, you and your institution by the federal taxpayer and by the state taxpayer regarding your breck tours on obamacare? >> i have disclosed for the committee as i understand from my counsel i'm required federal payment. >> i'm asking you an a question. give me a dollar amount. how much were you paid in the americanen taxpayer would like to know how much they paid you to deceive them and then got paid by the very dollars you made fun of. so how much were you paid. >> as i said the committee can take that up with my counsel. >> so you're not going to answer the question? you're under oath. we're asking you a simple question. you come to the committee, we ask the question. how much were you paid by the federal taxpayer and the state taxpayer. >> as i said, it the committee can take that up with my counsel. >> the gentleman suspend ford a moment. i want to size everyone that counsel has said that they're not available to clear up the

errors and omissions in the gentleman's truth filing. it does require our form does require grants, are contracts, in other words, we cover all revenue. we own received about $100,000 which is far less than the gentleman's testimony in disclosures which were three grants. as a result, the gentleman's disclosure is not complete. so i would admonish the dr dr. gruber. your choice is really answer questions here and then supplement or we will seek to bring you back with the full disclosure in order to get all the other numbers. it's really your choice, your counsel can advise you about, but we find your by your own testimony, we find your submission deficient. and your counsel is ill advised to say that it is sufficient because it only includes grants and you have contracts and you've admitted under oath that

you have contracts. so those are not listed and you are deficient again. i want to, this is our last hearing if, i don't have to recess and come back again i would loo i can to not have to recess and come back again. so please do not make this drag on longer if you can give answers to the best of your recollection and we will accept an amendment if that's the case an addendum at a later date. but the gentleman is entitled to have all questions to the best of your knowledge answered. you took an oath saying you would tell the truth, the whole truth, not the truth and only what your counsel says is going to be discussed. it is all questions, all answers. and if mr. cummings were sitting in this chair or anyone else, we could expect no less. mr. cummings. >> mr. chairman, i think his counsel is talking to him. why don't we give him a second. >> mr. chairman? >> just on that question, i have

a point of fact document here from and they have a fact checker thing that has you know, all kinds of numbers. they went into this in depth as to what the gentleman was paid. i was wondering if we just enter this in as part of the record. >> we'll certainly be happy to enter in without objection. >> thank you. >> the gentleman for ohio may continue. >> and i'd ask unanimous consent to have an additional 30 seconds without auction. >> i think i have a question on the table to mr. grubber. i'm waiting for his answer. >> i was advised i should report all federal monies received. i did that. i don't care what you were informed. what i'm asking you is how much money did the taxpayers state or federal, pay you to have you

then lie to them? that's what i want to know. >> over this physical year and the previous two physical years. >> no, total. look, this has been a five-year ordeal with this law. we want to know how much you got from the taxpayer and made fun of them after you got the money and lied to them. >> i don't recall 9 total. >> we want that information. let me switch gears. mr. guru ber, in a change way i kind of appreciate what you said in the videos because it seems for to me for the first time someone came clean and told the truth. you told people you were actually deceive us. here's my one question i want to get to. politico reported that steve ratner called you the man when it came to obamacare. the "washington post" said you were the key architect of obamacare. "the new york times" said the white house lent you the to capitol hill to help congress draft obamacare. they said go up there and help those poor folks on capitol hill get it right. you're the expert and help those

congressmen who don't note what they were doing. the president said head quote, stolen ideas from you to draft obamacare. you visited the white house 21 times. you met with the president, in your own words, you met with the president in the oval office. so i have one question. a few weeks ago when the video surfaced, what was your reaction when the president of the united states said you were just some advisor? remember, you're the man. you're the architect. been in the white house 21 times. you go to capitol hill to help those poor saps get it right. president stole from your ideas. you're the key guy and yet, when the videos surface, the president of the united states throws you under the bus and says you're just some op random advisor. what was your reaction to that, mr. gruber? >> my reaction was that my job was to be an advisor. and that's what i was.

>> miss tavenner, you're currently enrolling people in the federal exchanges. how many people have you enrolled thus far in this enrollment period? >> i don't have that number before me but i can get that you number. >> you don't have that number. even if you did, we might not believe it based on past experience. so let me ask you that. you're familiar with the court case king versus about yourwell? >> i am familiar with the case. >> okay. if the ruling goes against and says what mr. gary radnich gruber said in some of those videos that in fact those states who have not set up a state exchange cannot give subsidies to their enrollees, have you been explaining to people signing up for obamacare that look, this all may change in a matter of months? have you been letting people know that they might have to pay a lot more in their premiums and in fact have a tax like the they don't know the they have today? you've got to speak up.

>> nothing has changed for consumers. they can still come in. >> no, are you telling people things may change. we've got a court case, pretty big case. fundamental question. are you telling them there might be a change. >> this is not a closed case. >> i said it might be. are you giving them a heads-up that in fact things may change in a big way in a few months. >> i'm not going to speculate about the case. >> i'm asking are you telling enrollees that thing may change in a few months. >> nothing has changed for consumers. >> they could get a shocken an you're not preparing them for the increase in premiums and the tax liability they have? >> consumers should come in, sign up, they should enroll. >> do you think, miss tavenner, do you think it's responsible to not tell the millions of enrollee who are in states that have not set up a state exchange, do you think it's at all not to tell them that thing may change dramatically and they would have a tax liability and their premiums could increase as much as four fold. >> the gentleman's time has

expired. the gentle lady may answer. >> i'm sorry. >> you may answer. >> and i have told you, this is not a closed case. and i'm not going to speculate. the law is pretty clear. >> i will take that as a no, you are not telling them because of the statements you just made relative to your opinion of the case. is that right? as changed for consumers.t!qzm enroll. >> eleanor, i'm not trying to get into it. the gentleman was entitled to a no, we're not telling people. when she said why the she wasn't telling that she wasn't telling them. i think she made that clear as to why she decided not to inform them. >> i think that was the responsible thing to do. i doubt it would be retroactive. >> i think the gentle lady, the time belongs to the gentleman from the massachusetts, mr. lynch. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry, wait a second. i apologize. the gentle lady from washington, d.c. has already gone.

so thank you. thank you. mr. lynch. >> is it mr. clay or mr. lynch? >> mr. clay was not noted. if you had like him to go first, i certainly will take him. he's a delightful gentleman who has been waiting to go first for a long time. he looks needy. >> all right. he's going to wait. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i appreciate that. thank you. i want to thank the witnesses for attending. in my former life, i actually negotiated health care plans through collective bargaining. i was president of the ironworkers union, mr. gruber. and we're having a lot of problems in massachusetts in our home state with some provisions of the affordable care act. especially the so-called cadillac tax. now, you and i know that for a very long time, health care, until the affordable care act, health care was not taxed. so when i sat down with good

employers, good employers who cared about their employees, oftentimes they were more willing to give their employees an increase in their health benefits instead of putting it in their wages because wages were taxed through the payroll tax and health care was not. so now as a result of negotiating for 75 years on that basis, you've got a lot of the unions across this country that have built up multiemployer health benefit plans for health care for their employees. and because these employees have instead of taking money in their wages, they've taken money in their benefit plans, we've got most of the health care plans these multiemployer union health care plans are subject to this cadillac tax today, even though it doesn't come into effect

until 2018. so now what i'm seeing is, that employers are running away from their health care obligations because now they're going to be taxed a 40% tax on everything over and above the limits that have been established under the aca. so i've got formerly good employers who now are saying, wait a minute, i'm going to get killed by this cadillac tax. number one, they're abandoning their responsibilities to these plans. they're trying to get out they're trying to buy their way out. they're just reorganizing. they are in some cases, they're cutting their companies in half so they can try to get below 50 employees so that they're not covered. they are -- and new companies are not coming in to these multiemployer plans. so now i've got the unions, a lot of them who were in favor of this bill now asking me to

repeal it. vote to repeal it. they're coming to me. and i'm a union member. i'm a former union president. and i got these unions saying, repeal this thing. and now fortunately for me, i voted against it to begin with. i voted against the affordable care act because unlike some people, recent i actually sat down and read it. and it was one of the most complex bills that i have ever read. i had a full staff helping me with questions on that. so i think that this has presented a lot of problems for people who thought they were going to benefit from this plan. and how do i -- how do i fix this? how do i fix this so that previously good employers who are trying to do the right thing by their employees will continue to do that? because these construction workers they don't work 52 weeks a year. they get laid off and in between jobs, they have bad weather.

they get -- have broken time. so they needed this format to provide for their families. to get health insurance. and now these good employers are running away from their health care obligations because they see this tax coming down the road in 201, a lot of them are refusing to reup on their collective bar gipping agreements. they're walking away. and how do we help these employees? because now they're being told go to the engs change. we don't do that anymore. we're out of the health care business. how do we help those folks? >> well, congressman lynch, i'm not an expert on collective bargaining agreements. >> i guess. >> i can't conjecture on that. what i can say is the way the cadillac tax was designed, there's no reason the employers can't provide affordable and comprehensive insurance under the provisions of the cadillac

tax. >> for every dollar over the limit, they're paying $1740. >> given where the limit's set, there's no reason they can't can be provide affordable and comprehensive insurance to their employees under the cadillac tax. >> wait a minute. they're competing with other employees on a bid, if we're id bidding on a construction project and you have 49 employees and i have 150, my bid includes $13 an hour for health care. your bill, your bid is zero. how do i win the bid if i'm putting for every manhour on that job, i'm putting $13 an hour on my bid and you're putting zero on yours. >> how do i win? i'm out of business. >> there's been a long standing problem. >> you say i can afford it? how do i win that bid if my bid for every manhour on that job i have to put $13 an hour on my bid and abyou can put zero and send your people to the exchange or you're not -- you're not

obligated to account for health care? the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gruber can answer. >> there's been a long-standing problem between employers that do and do not afford provide health insurance. the health care act tries to address that and tries to level the playing field in that way. >> it doesn't do it. thank you. >> thank the gentleman. and i recognize the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. >> thank the chairman. mr. gru ber, you also did some work for the congressional budget office, correct, the cbo? >> i was on a cbo advisory council. >> when did that start? >> i don't exactly remember. it was probably. >> 2007 correcting >> mid towels. >> when did you stop working for the cbo? >> i did not -- i was on the advisory council until i think through 2008. i'm not entirely sure. >> you mean 2011. is that correct?

>> no, i did not go to meetings at the advisory council. >> were you on the advisory council till 2011. >> i honestly don't know when they took me off it, but i did not attend the meetings. >> were you on the cbo panel in 2010? >> i've not attended any meetings of the panel in 2010. >> but you were part of that organization. did you have any communications with the cbo? >> yes. áñ yes. meetings but you did have coáájt(urjj es 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 >> it was a meeting that lasteda maybe an hour and a half with about 20 people. i spoke for about five minutes. >> was mr. elmendorf there. >> yes, he was. >> what was your capacity in n that meeting? >> it was a meeting of before six of economic experts to talk to the president and his staff about options for health care cost control. >> were you there as a cbo member or were you there as an administration member? >> i was there as neither. i was there as an economic expert. >> somebody invited you there. you weren't -- somebody was paying you, correct? >> no one paid me to be at that meeting. i was invited to be at that meeting by the white house. >> we'll explore that a little bit more. mr. gruber, will you provide ou copies of all the work product e you w provided to the federal government related to the affordable care act healthcare.gov or any other health care reform proposals?iny >> i the committee can take that up with my counsel. >> no, no, no we're asking you.

not your counsel. counsel works for you you.h we're asking you under oath, p will you provider this information to this committee? >> once again, if the committeep can talk with my council. th no, no, be mr. gruber. we're asking you. you've been paid by the american taxpayers. will you or will p you not prove that information to this committee? >>. >> once again, the committee can take it up with my counsel. >> mr. chairman, this is something we have got to get toe the bottom of. i think members on both sides of this aisle should demand that f those documents paid for by the american taxpayers be part of r the public record. what are you hiding? why won't you give those to us? why are we not entitled to those? >> i'm not an expert on the ane rules of what'sxp disclosable as what's not. but my counsel is. is. and he would be happy to talk to the committee about it. ot >> why will you not give us those documents? >> i've not concluded one way or the other.

>> who owns those documents? >> who paid for it? >> i'm not sure. >> you>> i don't know who paid those documents? were you paid by the american taxpayer? >> i had a contract, a technical contract with hhs to do microsimulation modelling.on >> was there m any work productf that that you actually come up with documents, have ument discussions? >> yes, i had a large number of discussions. >> will you provide copies ofwee all the work product you provided to the state government related to the affordable care act state-based exchanges or any other health care reform proposals? the committee can take that up with my counsel. >> will you provide copies of your communication including e-mails, memorandum, presentations or any other re discussions or conversations yoo had with federal or state officials or employees related to the affordable care act exchanges or other health care reform proposals? >> once again, the committee caa take that up with my counsel. >> i need a yes or no. i'm not interested in talking to your counsel. i'm interested in talking to r i you. right now, under oath.

having been paid by the american taxpayers. will you or will b you not prove that information? >> you can take that up with my counsel. >> why do you believe you're yu entitled to not give it to us? >> i don't, know the rules of what of how you produce documents, things like that. i'm not a lawyer. >>awye do you have documents? >> do i own documents? >> do you have documents. >> i have,>> yeah, i have documents. >> an you're not willing to to us?e them >> i have all sorts of documents. i have a piece of paper in front of me. fr i don't understand. >> documents that relate to the questions that i just asked you, mr. gruber. do you not understand the question? >> i have -- i performed grant work for the federal government. there was work product from that work. i dofe not understand the rulesr under which that work product i supposed to be provide or not because i'm not a lawyer. you can take that up with my counsel. >> this is terribly frustrating, mr. chairman.trati

we will, i hope, get some f cooperation on both sides of th aisle to pursue this. yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. gruber, it does appear you have progressed in your ability to be better than any politician sitting at this desk today. it's frustrating and i would contend your attorney is not giving you adequate representation at this time. this committee has the right to have information that has been under question. you have gone from not talking off the cuff and making stupid statements to now being entirely political to the point of carrying out a responsibility. >> i would ask them to compel the witness to provide this kind

of information if he is not going to do it on a voluntary basis. >> i would recommend the gentlemen to take that up with the committee chair whose portrait hangs behind us. i would contucur with you, but won't step into the place. i recognize the gentlemen from virginia. this is a good showing one superior knowledge with respect to the committee. we had a post oversxy the mantl peril.

and they have a familiar refrain. in terms of how witnesses have been handled unless they are friendly witnesses who don't like the affordable care act. you are getting the special treatment to open the door. how often did you go to the romney administration offices of any kind when you were advising them on the model for obamacare. >> dozen of times.

did you have with obama. >> i was economic adviser to governor romney bike president obama. let me withdraw the last part. do you have documents for the romney period? >> i would hope if they had a broad copy, if we had everything you are involved in, i want to see if this is a pattern that should be limited to president obama. romney care was the model for obamacare. >> i believe that's true. >> is it not true right now in

massachusetts you can be fined if you don't comply with romney care and it's run through the tax administration in the common wealth of massachusetts. >> it is true that if you don't have health insurance you have to pay a tax. >> right. by the way, what happened to the uninsured percentage of massachusetts. did it go up and did a lot of people lose their health care? >> the rate of uninsured fell to 3%. >> 3%. how many other states have a 3% uninsured rate? >> massachusetts is by far the lowest in the nation. >> lowest in the nation. there were predictions that the fines were so relatively modest that employers would be tripping over each other to divest of employee-provided insurance plans and go on to the state exchange. did that happen in massachusetts? >> it did not and it rose by 10% in massachusetts after we passed

romney care. >> can you explain the interpretation of your statement and i will read your statement. in the law it said that states don't provide them and the back stop will. they have been slowing out the back stop partly because they want to squeeze the states to do it. it's important to remember politically if you are a state and don't set up a stage your citizens don't get the tax credits. opponents are using these remarks to further the argument not au tax credits that did not step up to their own exchanges. is that a correct interpretation of the law and your statement? >> i don't believe it's correct. the law or my statement. as i said in my opening remarks, my statement while poorly worded and much too glib, the point i was making is at the time i made that statement, 2012, it was not clear how effective it would be and who would be in the white

house that implements that federal exchange. as a result states might be concerned they would not be implemented. >> do you agree that as written, the law makes tax credits in every state regardless of whether the state or the federal government runs the exchange? >> in every opportunity i had to model or interpret the law, i made that assumption. >> my time is up. i would like consent to question on the affordable care act and what opponents are cherry picking in terms of facts. >> without objection. >> i thank the chairman. >> i thank the gentlemen. i recognize myself for minutes for questioning. at least to me it's apparent today in what we heard and what's gone on here. that americans now know that

government transparency under this administration simply means what you see is not what you get. that's concerning. do you believe obamacare was crafted in a way that was transparent to the american taxpayer? >> i certainly believe that the work i have been part of is transparent. >> was obamacare crafted in a way to be transparent? >> i was not here during the crafting of obamacare. >> would you say the administration is transparent in the implementation of obamacare? you have been here for that. >> we tried to be transparent and provide documents including the documents we sent yesterday. wie have provided 235,000 pages of documents and provided transcribed interviews and we tried to be transparent.

>> not completely. i don't recall probably the reoccurring terms. the obama administration promised 37 times that if you like your plan, you can keep the plan. when you were working on the law, did you believe that no one would lose a plan they like due to obamacare? >> i believe the law would not affect the vast majority. >> did you believe that no one as the president said would lose a plan they liked? it is true that some people might have to upgrade because

they were not comprehensive. >> they couldn't keep it even if they liked it? >> what the law said is there is minimums to be met. >> why did the president make this representation if the experts knew it was not true. that some would not be able to keep their plan. they would have to upgrade or change it. >> i have no answer to that question. >> you acknowledgeded in an article "the new yorker" that not everyone who liked their plans could keep their plans. when you knew it was false, such as in this instance, did you ever voice any concern? why or why not? >> saying for the vast majority

of americans, they would not help what they have. >> you are an economist with a model and we don't take that away from you at all. yet the president 37 times said if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. i'm here to say that my constituency and she had a plan she like and couldn't keep that plan. she is not stupid. she couldn't keep that plan. mark and kate, a young pastor and wife at a local church now expecting