Just as a rose by any other name is still a rose, a study commission by any other name is still a study commis-sion.
So it would be easy to dismiss Gov. Leavitt's planned new "Decision Jury" on Utah health care as just another cynical effort to placate the public by producing more studies that only gather dust on a shelf.But that way of assessing the governor's efforts would be at least premature and more likely unfair. If nothing else, the governor has produced a hybrid version of the study commission. Let's hope this particular hybrid does as well in politics as floral hybrids often do in rose shows.
Unlike the usual study commission composed of competing interests in an effort to harmonize conflicts among them, members of the "Decision Jury" would have no direct stake in health care except the usual and unavoidable one of being recipients. As now contemplated, the panel would consist of four members of the Legislature, two members of the executive branch of state government, six to eight members of the general public and possibly two judges. But it could be awkward for judges to serve, since lawsuits involving any new health-care reforms could put them in the position of having to pass judgment on their own work.
Since health care already has been studied to death, the main objective of the "Decision Jury" is not to produce new ideas but to produce a consensus on what reforms, if any, Utahns are willing to accept.
This would be done by having the "Decision Jury" formulate not a single sweeping overhaul of the health-care system but a set of options, including the option of no change at all.
Only at that point would interests with a direct stake in health care - such as hospitals, insurers, the medical profession and the poor - be brought to the table as advisers and advocates. After that point, the work of the "Decision Jury" would be put on the ballot in the form of a non-binding referendum.
Following the referendum, the Legislature would have the last word on any health-care reforms. Before the Legislature acted, the various interests would still have a chance to exert pressure on the lawmakers. But it would not be easy for the Legislature to act in defiance of the public will as expressed in the referendum.
Already the "Decision Jury" plan has produced some consensus to the extent of winning bipartisan approval from leaders in both chambers of the Legislature.
Let's hope this approval is based on a sincere belief in the wisdom of the plan rather than on the fact this new process enables the Legislature to avoid dealing with the controversial complexities of health care for at least another year.
But even if legislative approval is based on more than just delay, it's often easier to win agreement on a process than it is to win agreement on the result of a process. Legislators, after all, were elected to provide leadership and direction, not just blindly follow marching orders from their constituents.
If the "Decision Jury" works as intended, this innovation could generate much favorable attention for Utah and be copied widely. But if it flops, Utah officials may be understandably reluctant to try it again even though it might succeed if applied to problems where consensus is less elusive than it seems to be on health-care reform.
Much is riding, then, on Gov. Leavitt's new brainchild. If it is to succeed, he must make sure that only the very most competent people are appointed to the "Decision Jury." For the public's part, it must realize that any option produced by this or any other panel is bound to be painful and costly.
By all means, the Leavitt plan deserves a chance to show what it can do. But part of the problem is that it's hard for Utah and other states to control health-care costs as long as they can't control expenditures mandated by the federal government. Consequently, reform not only in health care itself but also in the method of seeking reform must be pursued at all levels of government.