Friday, July 30, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Closing Down the Logan County Hospital?
Over the past few years I have taken note of a number of dishonest political mail pieces which politicians use to try to convince people to vote for them. Usually the pieces consist of small white lies told out of context which have the intended effect of confusing the voters to the extent that they cannot make a clear decision about a politician’s stand on the issues.
However, with the possible exception of a series of mailers sent out in the 2004 House District 31 race, I have rarely seen a piece which exhibited such a clear disregard for anything remotely resembling the truth as a political hit piece mailed out by House District 31 candidate A.J. Jones. The Jones’ mailer hit voters’ mailboxes on Friday, which is just inside the time limit, making it difficult to respond in the newspapers and by direct mail.
The biggest lie in the mailer is the allegation that I want to close down the Logan County Hospital. The truth of the matter is that this issue is outside the purview of a State Representative and the claim has no basis in reality. I believe it is a manipulative and cynical attempt to scare the senior citizens who rely on hospital services into voting for Jones.
Let’s set a few things straight.
This is the hospital where I was born, where my father was born and where my mother worked as a nurse’s assistant. Three generations of my family have grown up just down the street from the hospital and I can still remember the stories my grandmother told about watching the Benedictine Heights building being built over a number of years from the 1920s to the 1940s.
As you might imagine, this feels like a very personal attack. I never appreciate a politician lying about the issues, but this lie is especially egregious. Had Jones taken the time to become an active member of the community prior to running for office, she would know that this issue is too important to local residents for her to play these dishonest and petty, manipulative games. It is wrong to toy with the emotions of senior citizens simply to get a vote.
Jones also lied about my educational background, claiming that I had an Associates degree, when in reality I possess a Bachelors. She falsely claimed that I sponsored legislation attempting to enhance county bureaucracy when I did not. She stated that I refused to meet with pro-business groups. This is also a lie. I cannot remember a time when I did not meet with someone who requested a meeting. She attempted to twist a proposal to enhance the rights of Oklahoma’s 70,000 or so concealed carry licensees into a claim that I am putting guns into the hands of students. She stated that I opposed the Bass Pro Shop when that store actually opened three to four years before I even started in the Legislature (although she did correctly state that I opposed the subsidy for the Sonics NBA team). She also claimed that I want to “defund” schools. If Jones is referring to my work on behalf of property tax reform, it is important to note that property tax reform would slow the rate of increase to schools but would not defund them from current levels.
This mail piece represents the culmination of a chain of events occurring over the course of the last two months during which I have received a steady stream of feedback from local residents who were contacted by Jones or her campaign manager and who stated that they were told any number of inaccuracies. These reports have continued right up until this time.
If you have any questions about the material which was in this mailer or any other claim being made by Jones or her campaign manager, please call my cell phone at 315-5064.
However, with the possible exception of a series of mailers sent out in the 2004 House District 31 race, I have rarely seen a piece which exhibited such a clear disregard for anything remotely resembling the truth as a political hit piece mailed out by House District 31 candidate A.J. Jones. The Jones’ mailer hit voters’ mailboxes on Friday, which is just inside the time limit, making it difficult to respond in the newspapers and by direct mail.
The biggest lie in the mailer is the allegation that I want to close down the Logan County Hospital. The truth of the matter is that this issue is outside the purview of a State Representative and the claim has no basis in reality. I believe it is a manipulative and cynical attempt to scare the senior citizens who rely on hospital services into voting for Jones.
Let’s set a few things straight.
This is the hospital where I was born, where my father was born and where my mother worked as a nurse’s assistant. Three generations of my family have grown up just down the street from the hospital and I can still remember the stories my grandmother told about watching the Benedictine Heights building being built over a number of years from the 1920s to the 1940s.
As you might imagine, this feels like a very personal attack. I never appreciate a politician lying about the issues, but this lie is especially egregious. Had Jones taken the time to become an active member of the community prior to running for office, she would know that this issue is too important to local residents for her to play these dishonest and petty, manipulative games. It is wrong to toy with the emotions of senior citizens simply to get a vote.
Jones also lied about my educational background, claiming that I had an Associates degree, when in reality I possess a Bachelors. She falsely claimed that I sponsored legislation attempting to enhance county bureaucracy when I did not. She stated that I refused to meet with pro-business groups. This is also a lie. I cannot remember a time when I did not meet with someone who requested a meeting. She attempted to twist a proposal to enhance the rights of Oklahoma’s 70,000 or so concealed carry licensees into a claim that I am putting guns into the hands of students. She stated that I opposed the Bass Pro Shop when that store actually opened three to four years before I even started in the Legislature (although she did correctly state that I opposed the subsidy for the Sonics NBA team). She also claimed that I want to “defund” schools. If Jones is referring to my work on behalf of property tax reform, it is important to note that property tax reform would slow the rate of increase to schools but would not defund them from current levels.
This mail piece represents the culmination of a chain of events occurring over the course of the last two months during which I have received a steady stream of feedback from local residents who were contacted by Jones or her campaign manager and who stated that they were told any number of inaccuracies. These reports have continued right up until this time.
If you have any questions about the material which was in this mailer or any other claim being made by Jones or her campaign manager, please call my cell phone at 315-5064.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
NRA Issues 2010 Candidate Grades. I have no clue how a challenger (mine) can get a D. http://ping.fm/qtC8d
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
State Employee Health Insurance Reform
During my last three updates I have written about the reforms proposed in this year’s Senate Bill 2052 -- and I have explained our goal of driving down costs to Oklahoma taxpayers by providing health insurance to state and education employees.
The bill sought to use some of the more innovative concepts which are working in the free market. I believe if these ideas were replicated by more businesses in the private sector and organizations such as the state of Oklahoma, the result would be a reduction in health care costs. This would deprive the federal government of their number one issue for advocating for the expansion of the federal government’s role in health care.
I originally wrote this series of articles in response to a constituent who supports the federal legislation. He asked why those of us who oppose the federal legislation did not introduce ideas of our own, so I made a note to write about innovative ways to control health care costs.
It is important to note that these innovative reforms were not the only components of Senate Bill 2052. The effort to draft this legislation started after the state’s self insurance program failed to pay many doctor’s claims in a timely manner. This prompted a number of health care providers to contact their legislators and ultimately resulted in the creation of a legislative working group to review the manner in which the state manages its health insurance program. The legislation evolved to address any number of health care reform issues, most of which I have not yet had the opportunity to write about.
One major outcome of this legislation (had it not been vetoed by the Governor) would have been the consolidation of the two agencies which manage health care benefits. There has been enormous tension between these two agencies because consolidation has been viewed by past legislatures as the logical starting place for achieving cost savings due to the duplicative nature of their organizational structures. Each of these agencies has worried about being consolidated into the other and this tension has resulted in a huge amount of political intrigue as they have battled for survival by building relationships with legislators over the years.
Because of these battles, the consolidation has never been implemented, even though the streamlining of benefits administration is extremely practical. Senate Bill 2052 represented the breakthrough that put aside politics, consolidated administrative functions and sought to realize what may have amounted to million of dollars in savings for Oklahoma taxpayers.
I have enjoyed the opportunity to present this legislation to the House and look forward to advancing these reforms once again during the next legislative session.
The bill sought to use some of the more innovative concepts which are working in the free market. I believe if these ideas were replicated by more businesses in the private sector and organizations such as the state of Oklahoma, the result would be a reduction in health care costs. This would deprive the federal government of their number one issue for advocating for the expansion of the federal government’s role in health care.
I originally wrote this series of articles in response to a constituent who supports the federal legislation. He asked why those of us who oppose the federal legislation did not introduce ideas of our own, so I made a note to write about innovative ways to control health care costs.
It is important to note that these innovative reforms were not the only components of Senate Bill 2052. The effort to draft this legislation started after the state’s self insurance program failed to pay many doctor’s claims in a timely manner. This prompted a number of health care providers to contact their legislators and ultimately resulted in the creation of a legislative working group to review the manner in which the state manages its health insurance program. The legislation evolved to address any number of health care reform issues, most of which I have not yet had the opportunity to write about.
One major outcome of this legislation (had it not been vetoed by the Governor) would have been the consolidation of the two agencies which manage health care benefits. There has been enormous tension between these two agencies because consolidation has been viewed by past legislatures as the logical starting place for achieving cost savings due to the duplicative nature of their organizational structures. Each of these agencies has worried about being consolidated into the other and this tension has resulted in a huge amount of political intrigue as they have battled for survival by building relationships with legislators over the years.
Because of these battles, the consolidation has never been implemented, even though the streamlining of benefits administration is extremely practical. Senate Bill 2052 represented the breakthrough that put aside politics, consolidated administrative functions and sought to realize what may have amounted to million of dollars in savings for Oklahoma taxpayers.
I have enjoyed the opportunity to present this legislation to the House and look forward to advancing these reforms once again during the next legislative session.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Driving Down Health Care Costs Through the Implementation of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)
I was privileged to serve on the legislative task force charged with designing this year’s omnibus state employee health care insurance reform plan (Senate Bill 2052). In creating this plan we attempted to draw heavily on best practices which are stabilizing health care costs for other organizations.
One of those best practices is the plan used by the State of Indiana to incentivize the wise use of its state employee health insurance plan through the implementation of Health Savings Accounts.
The Indiana plan was developed by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels in an effort to provide a consumer directed health care option to state employees.
In the Indiana's HSA, the state deposits an amount of money into an account which is controlled by the state employee, from which the employee pays all his or her health bills. This amount of money can be used to pay co-pays and deductibles and unused money can roll over from year to year. The idea is that plan participants will become more cost-conscious, have a sense of ownership over the money and thus be more careful about over-utilization of health care services or overpayment related to health care charges.
The plan has proven to be popular in Indiana as 70% of its state employees have chosen to use this plan compared to just 2% of public sector employees across the nation. Savings have also been significant as participants in the plan save more than 8 million dollars per year when compared to participants in traditional health care plans. Indiana HSA plan participants spent just 65 dollars for every 100 dollars expended by those taking part in the traditional health care plan.
It is this cost savings that we attempted to achieve in Senate Bill 2052. Working with the organizations representing public employees we sought to guarantee that future state employee health insurance benefit increases would be rolled into funding this plan.
Common sense suggests that when an employee is given the opportunity to have direct ownership over his or her health care dollars, they will make choices to protect that balance from unnecessary expenditures. However, if we continue to utilize a traditional one-size-fits-all health care insurance funding option then it is to be expected that costs will continue to increase. Governor Daniels summed it up this way, “What seems free will always be overconsumed, compared to the choices a normal consumer would make.”
I was very disappointed that our Governor chose to veto Senate Bill 2052. I look forward to once again passing this reform and the health and wellness reform which I wrote about last week. I believe we will have this opportunity when the new Governor takes office next year.
One of those best practices is the plan used by the State of Indiana to incentivize the wise use of its state employee health insurance plan through the implementation of Health Savings Accounts.
The Indiana plan was developed by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels in an effort to provide a consumer directed health care option to state employees.
In the Indiana's HSA, the state deposits an amount of money into an account which is controlled by the state employee, from which the employee pays all his or her health bills. This amount of money can be used to pay co-pays and deductibles and unused money can roll over from year to year. The idea is that plan participants will become more cost-conscious, have a sense of ownership over the money and thus be more careful about over-utilization of health care services or overpayment related to health care charges.
The plan has proven to be popular in Indiana as 70% of its state employees have chosen to use this plan compared to just 2% of public sector employees across the nation. Savings have also been significant as participants in the plan save more than 8 million dollars per year when compared to participants in traditional health care plans. Indiana HSA plan participants spent just 65 dollars for every 100 dollars expended by those taking part in the traditional health care plan.
It is this cost savings that we attempted to achieve in Senate Bill 2052. Working with the organizations representing public employees we sought to guarantee that future state employee health insurance benefit increases would be rolled into funding this plan.
Common sense suggests that when an employee is given the opportunity to have direct ownership over his or her health care dollars, they will make choices to protect that balance from unnecessary expenditures. However, if we continue to utilize a traditional one-size-fits-all health care insurance funding option then it is to be expected that costs will continue to increase. Governor Daniels summed it up this way, “What seems free will always be overconsumed, compared to the choices a normal consumer would make.”
I was very disappointed that our Governor chose to veto Senate Bill 2052. I look forward to once again passing this reform and the health and wellness reform which I wrote about last week. I believe we will have this opportunity when the new Governor takes office next year.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Using Market-Based Health Care Principles to Save Taxpayer Dollars
Last week I wrote an update in which I opined the necessity for state leaders to closely observe the ways free market organizations are using best practices to drive down health care costs. Like all state government spending, it is extremely important for us to work hard to maximize taxpayer dollars through the application of market-based solutions, and pass on as much savings as possible. It is also important for these solutions to be utilized to stop the increase in health care costs and thus take away the primary argument for those who wish to expand the role of the federal government in health care.
Last year I sent out an update stating that I would be involved in a legislative working group charged with analyzing the government’s employee insurance program. A constituent recipient of the update encouraged me to look at the program used by the Safeway Corporation to stabilize their health insurance cost. This concept would become one of the most important components of the state employee health insurance reform proposal (SB 2052) passed by the Legislature but vetoed by the Governor.
The Safeway plan is completely voluntary and drives down costs by incentivizing wellness and prevention by rewarding plan participant through lower health insurance premium costs.
The Safeway plan focuses on two base prevention concepts. The company ascertained that 70% of health care costs are the result of the lifestyle choices and 74% of all health care costs are related to the following four chronic conditions: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer. They believe that 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes are preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and at least 90% of obesity cases can be prevented.
The company observed that these conditions could be prevented by incentivizing employees to voluntarily address the issues of tobacco usage, healthy weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.
The results have been dramatic. Since the program was started in 2005, Safeway has kept their per capita health care cost stable at a time when most companies’ costs went up by 38%. Their obesity and smoking rates are roughly 70% of the national average. 78% of employees rated the plan positively and many employees lost weight and lowered blood-pressure and cholesterol levels.
In my view, it is our job as Oklahoma legislators to implement a similar program and pass on the savings not only to state government entities, but also to county and school board governing entities which use the state employee insurance programs.
Incorporating a localized version of this program in Senate Bill 2052 was something which the entire legislative working group insisted on. Our version of this approach was designed to save taxpayer funds and to allow employees to lower their deductible and co-pay costs. I believe we are still committed to securing legislative approval for the concept in the next legislative session.
Most importantly, this approach addresses the right way to achieve health care reform because it will encourage employers working with their employees to drive down the cost, instead of the federal government getting involved with various mandates.
Next week I will write about another of the market-based concepts incorporated into Senate Bill 2052.
Last year I sent out an update stating that I would be involved in a legislative working group charged with analyzing the government’s employee insurance program. A constituent recipient of the update encouraged me to look at the program used by the Safeway Corporation to stabilize their health insurance cost. This concept would become one of the most important components of the state employee health insurance reform proposal (SB 2052) passed by the Legislature but vetoed by the Governor.
The Safeway plan is completely voluntary and drives down costs by incentivizing wellness and prevention by rewarding plan participant through lower health insurance premium costs.
The Safeway plan focuses on two base prevention concepts. The company ascertained that 70% of health care costs are the result of the lifestyle choices and 74% of all health care costs are related to the following four chronic conditions: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer. They believe that 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes are preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and at least 90% of obesity cases can be prevented.
The company observed that these conditions could be prevented by incentivizing employees to voluntarily address the issues of tobacco usage, healthy weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.
The results have been dramatic. Since the program was started in 2005, Safeway has kept their per capita health care cost stable at a time when most companies’ costs went up by 38%. Their obesity and smoking rates are roughly 70% of the national average. 78% of employees rated the plan positively and many employees lost weight and lowered blood-pressure and cholesterol levels.
In my view, it is our job as Oklahoma legislators to implement a similar program and pass on the savings not only to state government entities, but also to county and school board governing entities which use the state employee insurance programs.
Incorporating a localized version of this program in Senate Bill 2052 was something which the entire legislative working group insisted on. Our version of this approach was designed to save taxpayer funds and to allow employees to lower their deductible and co-pay costs. I believe we are still committed to securing legislative approval for the concept in the next legislative session.
Most importantly, this approach addresses the right way to achieve health care reform because it will encourage employers working with their employees to drive down the cost, instead of the federal government getting involved with various mandates.
Next week I will write about another of the market-based concepts incorporated into Senate Bill 2052.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)