[From article]
Let’s update this script to 2015 to place in context Breitbart News’s revelations of built-in contract fraud at the heart of the Affordable Care Act. If we were to restate it: The doctor (Prof. Gruber) may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself ‘You know what? I make a lot more money (compared to my MIT salary) if I take this kid’s tonsils out award myself lucrative no-bid personal federal and state consulting contracts as direct statutory requirement of the Affordable Care Act -- of which I am the architect.”
These outrageous fees ($500/hour) to Prof. Gruber are required by federal law because his software econometrics model of healthcare exchanges is specifically required for implementation -- not only for the Federal Government but also all the states attempting to set up their own “exchanges.” Prof. Gruber has circumvented competitive bidding and resultant cost-containment by claiming unique proprietary capabilities available nowhere else in the market. This law constituted carte-blanche for Prof. Gruber to write his own highly lucrative consulting contracts with the States.
[. . .]
Gruber has essentially enjoyed a monopoly on economic analysis of Obamacare since February 25, 2009, barely a month after President Obama’s inauguration. On that date, the federal government issued a public notice that “[t]he Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), intends to negotiate with Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D. on a sole sources basis for technical assistance in evaluating options for national healthcare reform.”
[. . .]
These contracts resulted in $500 per hour fees to Prof. Gruber personally -- not including separate contracts to pay for his expenses -- resulting in million-dollar-a-year personal compensation (nice work if you can get it!) Americans instinctively know that this arrangement is rotten to the core,
[. . .]
When did it become clear that Dr. Gruber was not only ruling on the technical efficacy of health care reform, but with such rulings also forcing the states to make him a very rich man? Did he properly disclose to DHHS his financial stake? Not being a permanent employee, Prof. Gruber’s DHHS contract probably falls generally under the rules applied by NIH’s Office of Extramural Research, whose definition of Conflict of Interest can be found on here:
“A Financial conflict of Interest (FCOI) exists when the Institution’s designated official(s) reasonably determines that a Significant Financial Interest (defined below) could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct, or reporting of NIH-funded research.”
[. . .]
He also claims 100% ownership in his namesake software model. Creators in the private sector generally owe commercial rights to their work-product to their employers, clients or companies. Prof. Gruber’s IP obligations are doubtless recorded in the MIT faculty employment manual.
[. . .]
Almost all financial fraud arises from falsifying -- in some manner or another -- one of three types of primary commercial documents: 1) forged bank documents; 2) false invoices submitted for payment or reimbursement; or 3) falsified timesheets submitted for compensation for employment or consulting hours.
[. . .]
It appears by the sums involved, that Prof. Gruber was being retained for months or perhaps years at a time for substantial part-time engagements away from MIT. Indeed, Prof. Gruber’s public sector funded personal compensation appears to be higher than that afforded to both the President of the United States and the Governor of Vermont.
[. . .]
The Microsimulation model was surely developed while Prof. Gruber was full time employee at MIT, an educational institution which not only paid his salary but also provided office and classroom space, colleagues, computer resources, students, travel expenses, etc. etc. Again, how did Prof. Gruber attain this model as his sole property?
[. . .]
Prof. Gruber seems to have bypassed his employer, pocketing the federal and state funding directly, without regard to any professional obligations to his colleagues and students.
[. . .]
The suspicion is that he pocketed the money himself and never actually employed anyone[3]. It is inconceivable that this severe accusation has not circulated in Cambridge and environs. Yet in the weeks since this accusation was first published -- in the sense of the “dog that didn’t bark” -- no one has come forward to say: “It’s all a misunderstanding! I am Prof. Gruber’s former student and it was me! I was the one who did the work and billed the time to the Vermont project!” This accusation, if true, clearly could lead to potential criminal charge of contract fraud. While maintaining silence, his colleagues, perhaps resentful and disgusted by his blatant “cashing in,” have not rallied to his defense.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/grubers_grasp.html
March 16, 2015
Gruber's Grasp
By Jerome J. Schmitt
No comments:
Post a Comment