In reality, the IPAB had no decision-making authority. Its function was entirely advisory. At the end of 2009, Politifact named the "death panel" claim its "lie of the year," pointing out that no part of the ACA, including the IPAB, would lead to the type of rationed care that Palin and some other conservative activists had described.

The political rhetoric served its intended effect, however. A survey in 2016 showed that nearly a third of Americans believed that the ACA included a "death panel" component.

The IPAB itself, however, never served its intended effect. Republicans took control of the House of Representatives shortly after the ACA was approved and never showed much interest in pursuing recommendations made by an Obamacare panel.

Speaking to the Washington Post, a number of experts who supported the mission of the IPAB described the board as fatally flawed.

Paul Van de Water, of the left-leaning Center for Budget Priorities, blamed the medical community.

"Provider groups lobbied against IPAB under the guise of protecting seniors, when they were really protecting their own income," he said. "In fact, the law specifically prohibited IPAB from rationing health care, raising Medicare's premiums or cost sharing, cutting benefits, or restricting eligibility. Now the Republican Congress is even more likely to consider blunt proposals to reduce Medicare spending by shifting costs to beneficiaries."

Others, however, said that the board was too focused on doctors and hospitals, rather than finding savings in other parts of the health care system.

"(I)t only focused on provider spending rather than the larger set of options, such as benefits, structure and eligibility, that could reduce spending on Medicare," says Gail Wilensky, a former member of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.