Casting A Wary Eye On The National Health Museum
By Stephen M. Lilienthal (10/20/06)
If the health care "establishment" were to prevail an office building and parking lot of the Federal Government would become the site of the new National Health Museum (NHM). This showcase is packaged as a deal that is difficult, even for many conservatives, to oppose. Prominent leaders in medicine, such as Dr. Louis Sullivan, Secretary of Health & Human Services during the George H. W. Bush Administration, advocate the NHM's construction. Given the sterling reputations and perseverance of NHM backers there is a strong likelihood it will eventually be constructed with significant assistance from the Federal Government.
Should conservatives fall in line, viewing the construction of the NHM as inevitable, or should they resist building it with federal funds and on federal land?
Currently bills are pending in both Houses of Congress to authorize the purchase of land to construct the NHM on or close to the Mall. Senator John Isakson (R-GA) is sponsor of S. 2015, the National Health Museum Act, reported last year out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Representative Phil Gingrey, M.D. (R-GA) is the sponsor of H.R. 3630, similarly titled.
Both bills would authorize the NHM to purchase property known as the “Cotton Annex” and a parking lot adjacent to the Mall. Gingrey’s bill stipulates the purchase price is to be determined by an appraiser deemed “mutually acceptable” by the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) and the NHM. The Congressional Budget Office in its December 1, 2005 analysis of S. 2015 estimated the Federal Government stands to gain approximately $100 million from selling the land “…based on recent property sales in the District.”
The Washington, D.C. area already has a museum devoted to medicine, the National Museum of Health and Medicine, located at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Museum receives an estimated 50,000 visits annually, a count that pales in comparison to the visits received by the museums located on the Mall. Walter Reed, per the recommendation of the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC), will have many of its current programs transferred to a facility in nearby Bethesda, Maryland. BRAC declared the National Museum of Health and Medicine would not be “disestablished” and the museum would be eventually relocated to the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda.
A drive spearheaded by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and supported by prominent leaders in medicine and business led to the inclusion of the National Health Museum Development Act in the 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Bill. The Bill authorized $500,000 to form a commission charged with developing plans for a new museum devoted to medicine and health. (A December 16, 1997 WASHINGTON POST news story, “Push Is On for New Medical Museum as Old Collection Is Modernized,” recalled that Koop originally wanted the Walter Reed Museum to be relocated on the Mall.)
There are two good reasons to be wary about continued federal support for the NHM.
NHM’s appropriation drew scorn from Carolyn Lochhead in a May 1998 REASON magazine article, “Wallet Surgery,” in which she argued that most taxpayers failed to recognize the “tremendous victory for all Americans” ballyhooed by museum supporters after President William J. Clinton signed the appropriations bill which included NHM’s funding “even though they’ve made a $500,000 down payment on it and will be paying a lot more down the road.” Citizens Against Government Waste placed the appropriation establishing the commission in its “1998 Congressional Pig Book® Summary.” Such criticism failed to deter plans to build the NHM.
The House Republican Study Committee, in a policy brief issued in August, maintains conservatives must be wary about the NHM and its reliance on federal funds and land.
At the very least, conservatives should be scrutinizing the NHM, establishing tough and thorough conditions under which it would be constructed and operated were it to receive federal funds. It’s a dollars and cents issue but much more. Conservatives argue that the land will be given away at bargain basement prices. The Republican Study Committee Brief states, “Bill opponents will argue that offering up a valuable piece of land in Washington, D.C. for sale would not bring just the ‘fair market value’ as the bill requires, but likely a bidding war that would far exceed this non-competitive sale price.” The question is pressing given that supporters of the NHM include well-heeled organizations and corporations such as the American Medical Association, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Genentech, Glaxo, Merck, Novartis, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association of America and the William A. Haseltine Foundation for the Arts and Sciences.
Social conservatives have a vested interest in exercising exacting oversight over a federally funded NHM, lest it metastasize into a tax-dollar devouring institution promoting values antithetical to the sanctity of life and traditional values.
The NHM’s “About Us: History” webpage says “…the NHM was conceived not as a federal entity, but as a private institution that would depend on volunteers for its funding.” Clearly, the NHM has succeeded in drawing private support. Will it become another institution with a voracious appetite for federal largesse? Tommy G. Thompson, as Secretary of Health & Human Services (HHS), announced a $1 million grant to the NHM on December 16, 2004. Sullivan described the award as “…the start of a true public-private partnership.” Promises of the NHM’s ability to serve as an “independent, unbiased center of dialogue about health issues” must be viewed skeptically. The RSC Brief details how several leading members of the NHM Board have advocated or maintained affiliations in groups with positions contrary to pro-life issues and traditional values. (One notable pro-life stalwart on the Board is Thompson, who left HHS in late 2004.)
The RSC Policy Brief reports that advocates offered repeated assurances that the NHM would refrain from addressing controversial health issues such as abortion, RU-486, and HIV/AIDS. It recalls, “…Congressional investigators noticed in October 2005, that the Health Museum’s website listed under Science & Discoveries: Leading Edge Advances in Health Science: ‘A special in-depth report of a controversial subject.’” It was stem-cell research. The RSC Policy Brief states the webpage was removed after the NHM staff had been informed.
CitizenLink, a Focus on the Family e-letter, in its November 2, 2005 issue, quoted Gingrey as proposing a disclaimer, “The health museum shall commit to avoid discussion of sensitive topics such as abortion, physician assisted suicide, human embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning and even human in vitro fertilization.” The Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee issued a report that included this objective: “The committee expects that the Museum will respect its visitors and their differing views on health issues; thus, the committee expects that the Museum will avoid controversial topics.”
Many observers hold reservations as to how effective Gingrey’s disclaimer and the EPW report language will be in preventing exhibits and programs that demean or simply ignore traditional values. The list of topics he detailed to CitizenLink cannot protect against unforeseen future developments unfriendly to traditional values, the sanctity of life and the free-market. Who will decide what is truly “controversial?” How would enforcement occur if the NHM addresses a third-rail topic? NHM advocates could claim the effort to restrain a NHM which accepts federal funds from commenting on controversial issues to be a “gag rule.” Clearly, many NHM supporters and Board Members tilt away from traditional values and are unlikely to be counted upon as adamant supporters of a free-market philosophy that would frown upon government programs such as the costly Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage.
Imagine the exhibit that might have been presented in 1993 when national health care was the rage among the Clinton Administration and many powerful Members of Congress. Is it inconceivable that NHM would have staged an exhibit extolling the diversity of international health care systems, no doubt focusing on those of Canada and the European socialist democracies? Such an exhibition would not have been prevented in the language Gingrey suggested last year to CitizenLink. The fact that those particular health care systems at that time did not face serious threats of wholesale dismantlement from political opponents would have allowed NHM staff to argue they were relatively non-controversial.
Savvy social conservatives warn the NHM is certain to place a leftist spin on health issues. James Backlin, Vice President for Legislative Affairs, Christian Coalition, asserted last year to CitizenLink that this museum is likely to cover controversial issues, such as abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, from a vantage point unfriendly to life. Organizations such as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the Christian Medical & Dental Association, which offer libertarian or pro-life views, are not sponsors. Neither organization’s spokesmen said they had been contacted by the NHM for their input on medical issues, nor had the Family Research Council, an organization known for its expertise on bioethics issues from a traditionalist, Judeo-Christian viewpoint.
Kathryn Serkes, Policy and Public Affairs Director for the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, says the NHM has “…moved the idea of a museum from being a center for archiving history to that of an advocacy center for the nanny state. When the Federal Government goes on a spending diet then, and only then, can they start telling me to lose weight.”
Should Congress approve the sale of land to a museum that appears likely to ignite controversies? Should the Federal Government fund such an institution? There is a better alternative. Why can’t the NHM Board shun all federal funding and take care to assure objectivity in its exhibits and activities?
Unconvinced? Slip the shoe on the other foot. Imagine the outcry if pro-lifers and traditionalists attempted to secure taxpayer funds for a museum on the Mall to memorialize the millions of children aborted since Roe. v. Wade?
Stephen M. Lilienthal is a policy analyst with the Free Congress Foundation.
(Printer friendly version) 
Send Feedback
