Office Of The Assistant Secretary For Planning And EvaluationEdit
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) sits at the crossroads of policy, budget, and program design within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). As the department’s principal adviser on policy development and evaluation, ASPE translates political priorities into analytic work that shapes how programs are funded, run, and reformed. Its mandate covers a broad swath of health and social policy, from Medicare and Medicaid to aging, disability, child welfare, public health, and health equity. By providing cross-cutting planning, economic analysis, program evaluation, and data interpretation, ASPE aims to help the secretary and Congress understand what works, what costs money, and what could be improved in order to deliver value to taxpayers and beneficiaries alike. This blend of analysis and policy input is a core tool for turning ambitious goals into practical, evidence-based policies and legislative proposals. See also policy analysis, cost-benefit analysis.
ASPE operates within a framework that prizes evidence, accountability, and prudent stewardship of scarce resources. Its work is designed to be timely and actionable for leadership at the department, as well as for other parts of the federal government, Congress, and the public. In practice, ASPE weighs the trade-offs inherent in reform proposals, estimates fiscal impacts, and assesses unintended consequences, all with an eye toward improving program performance without unnecessary growth in government. The office also helps articulate the department’s strategic priorities and coordinates cross-cutting policy analysis that spans multiple programs and offices. See also data analysis, regulatory policy.
History
ASPE emerged from the federal government’s long-running effort to centralize policy planning and evaluation within major social programs. Over the years, its scope has evolved with changing administrations, reflecting shifts in priorities around health care financing, public health preparedness, aging, disability policy, and the management of federal social insurance programs. The office relies on a mix of political appointees and career staff to provide timely, policy-relevant analysis that informs the secretary’s agenda and the department’s legislative and regulatory activities. See also executive branch.
Role and functions
Policy analysis and evaluation: ASPE conducts quantitative and qualitative analyses to inform policy options, assess program performance, and forecast budgetary effects. This includes cost-benefit analyses, cost-effectiveness studies, and impact assessments tied to proposed rules or legislation. See also cost-benefit analysis, health policy.
Data and statistics: The office oversees the collection, interpretation, and dissemination of data relevant to health and social policy, helping to illuminate trends, outcomes, and disparities. See also data.
Strategic planning and cross-cutting policy: ASPE develops long-range policy strategies that cut across program silos, aligning departmental priorities with fiscal realities and administrative goals. See also strategic planning.
Policy development support: The office drafts analysis to accompany policy proposals, regulations, and budget requests, providing the analytics needed to weigh alternatives and justify decisions. See also regulatory policy.
Interagency and stakeholder coordination: ASPE engages with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and stakeholders to harmonize planning, share best practices, and avoid duplicative initiatives. See also interagency cooperation.
Oversight of program evaluation and learning: By evaluating program design and outcomes, ASPE helps identify what works, what doesn’t, and where reforms could improve results without unnecessary spending. See also program evaluation.
Notable policy domains include Medicare and Medicaid policy, health care financing, public health preparedness, aging and disability, child welfare and family support, maternal and child health, and efforts to reduce health disparities. See also Medicare, Medicaid, Public health, Aging, Disability policy, Head Start, TANF.
Notable policy areas and reports
Health care policy and financing: Analyses of proposals to modify payment systems, coverage expansions, and cost containment within federal health programs. See also Medicare, Medicaid.
Aging and long-term care: Policy insights on aging populations, long-term services and supports, and the balance between federal support and family or market-based care. See also Aging.
Child and family policy: Evaluation of programs affecting children and families, including early childhood education and welfare reform measures. See also Head Start, TANF.
Health disparities and equity: Work on measuring outcomes across populations and informing policy choices intended to improve access and results for underserved groups, while navigating debates about how to define and address disparities. See also health disparities.
Data governance and privacy: Guidance on data collection, privacy protections, and how data informs policy without compromising civil liberties. See also privacy.
Controversies and debates
From a center-right perspective, ASPE’s work is viewed as a pragmatic instrument of policy design, but it also sits amid broader debates about the proper role of government in health and social policy. Key points of contention include:
Scope and independence of analysis: Critics argue that an internal policy shop can reflect the administration’s priorities too closely, potentially biasing analysis toward favored reforms. Proponents counter that ASPE’s mission is to provide timely, rigorous policy options and to be transparent about assumptions and uncertainties. See also policy analysis.
Emphasis on public programs vs. market-based solutions: Some observers contend that heavy reliance on program evaluation within a large federal department can tilt policy toward expanding or preserving government programs, while others argue that rigorous evaluation is essential to ensure public programs deliver value and do not become entrenched failures. See also Medicare, Medicaid.
Measurement and metrics: Debates center on which metrics capture true value. Costs and benefits can be difficult to quantify, and critics contend that overreliance on certain metrics may overlook factors like personal responsibility, family stability, or local governance. Advocates say robust measurement is necessary to avoid waste and to justify policy choices. See also cost-benefit analysis.
Focus on disparities and identity-based policy questions: Some critics on the right argue that policies framed around racial, ethnic, or gender disparities can lead to overemphasis on group identities in policy design. Supporters maintain that understanding disparities is essential to improving outcomes and ensuring policies are effective for the people they aim to help. Woke criticisms of policy analysis—often accusing data work of bias or ideological slant—are addressed in policy debates as a dispute over methodology and priorities; proponents argue that data-driven policy is neutral and essential, while opponents claim it can become a vehicle for political correctness. See also health disparities.
Role in the regulatory process: ASPE’s analyses can influence regulatory decisions, which means debates about regulatory burden, efficiency, and unintended consequences frequently surface. Critics may say this underscores a need for tighter cost controls, while supporters emphasize the value of careful, evidence-based rulemaking. See also regulatory policy.