By Matt Miller
I have just the thing if President Obama was serious about asking Mitt Romney to "work together to move this country forward."
Romney was a world-class management consultant with a legendary appetite for "the data." His private-equity success was due partly to his knack for identifying and purging inefficiencies from bloated, underperforming enterprises. It's time, therefore, to set him loose (analytically speaking) on the mother of all domestic challenges: America's radically inefficient health-care system.
Outsize U.S. health-care costs have killed wage growth, wrecked public budgets, and diverted trillions in resources from other purposes. They also warp every aspect of public debate. In the current "fiscal cliff" standoff, for example, although both parties are scared to shave Medicare's growth, we already spend vastly more on each senior than is needed for high-quality care. We spend 17 percent of gross domestic product on health care, while most nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development spend around 11 percent for similar outcomes (and mighty Singapore spends just 4 percent).
The political problem, of course, is that every dollar of health-care "waste" is someone's dollar of income. To reframe the debate, we need an authoritative analysis that identifies exactly what's driving our costs so much higher than everyone else's - as well as a set of lessons we can learn from the nations that do more with much less.
Hence Mitt's new mission, if he'll accept it. Obama should convene a presidential commission on national health costs, to be chaired by Romney and filled with leaders from every part of the sector (plus other relevant experts). The president would propose a new national goal: Instead of letting health-care spending rise toward 20 percent or more of GDP in a decade, America should aim to reduce health spending by, say, 3 percent of GDP, while maintaining or improving quality and outcomes.
Romney's commission would have three deliverables. It would explain in detail the sources of difference between our outsize spending, the OECD nations' average, and Singapore's; explain how others achieve more cost-effective systems; and identify options that could move us toward international benchmarks.
One more thing: While acknowledging the perspective each commissioner brings given his or her professional role, Obama and Romney together would ask them to step beyond parochial concerns to address these questions in the context of the broader national interest. Seriously.
By experience and temperament, Mitt Romney is arguably better positioned than anyone in the country to lead such an effort. The Romney Report could transform the debate.