Health

Here’s an item that didn’t get much attention in the local media last week: As part of the Affordable Care Act, Oklahoma will receive $1 million from the federal government to monitor health insurance premium increases to determine if they are excessive.

If insurance companies are seeking “unreasonable rates” here, then the state could use the money to take action against them, according to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Oklahoma was one of 45 states and the District of Columbia to receive the money.

This may not be the most interesting or entertaining news, and some progressives will argue it’s not enough, but it shows one small example how President Barack Obama’s recently passed health care reform initiative—attacked viciously and mindlessly here by the right-wing—sides with ordinary people who have faced huge premium increases in recent years. It’s a beginning to more reform and oversight.

According to a HHS press release:

For too long, insurance companies in many States have increased health insurance premiums with little oversight, transparency, or public accountability. Health insurance premiums have doubled on average during the last 10 years, much faster than wages and inflation, putting health coverage out of reach for millions of Americans and business owners.

Here in Oklahoma, a state with some of the poorest medical outcomes in the nation, the right-wing, anti-Obama herd in the legislature last session voted to bring an opt-out measure to voters in November, which would allow the residents to ignore the new federal health care guidelines. The constitutionality of the measure, if passed, will obviously be challenged. Can a state just ignore federal laws? No. Ironically, Oklahoma is a donor state in terms of taxes, which means it receives a lot more money back from the federal government that it pays in. Do state leaders really want to sever this cushy relationship with the federal government though ideological political stunts?

But the larger story here is the somewhat quiet progress of the health care initiative, which has been taking place in stages. Children can no longer be denied insurance for preexisting conditions. HHS has also begun an insurance program for all people denied insurance because of preexisting conditions. This progress has been lost in election year partisan posturing and rhetoric.

Here’s the specific information about Oklahoma premium monitoring, according to the HHS:

[Oklahoma] conducts limited rate review activities. HMOs and small group filings are required, however individual and large group products are not required to file. Oklahoma has the authority to require all rates to be filed. The State will use funds to expand activities to align with the existing authority for rate review in the State, improve processes, systems and pursue additional authority if determined necessary.

[Oklahoma] currently provides consumers access to rate filings upon request via mail or by allowing viewing at the department's office. The State intends to create a consumer website to post the information on rate review. In addition, they plan to create consumer education materials including a report on the health insurance market in the State for consumers. They are also considering a consumer Ombudsman program.

Here are two things to note in the above information: (1) Undoubtedly, Oklahoma “conducts limited rate review activities” because of budget constraints. But one has to speculate that another reason or at least pressure for limited review could be that the powerful corporate political lobby here supports insurance companies interests over consumers. (2) The consumer website is an excellent idea that means more convenient, public access to government information.

The Affordable Care Act is not perfect, but it will improve health care and medical outcomes in Oklahoma. Too bad that simple message sometimes gets lost in all the political bickering.

The Oklahoman editorial page’s recent spiteful “good riddance” to Wayne Rohde, who has fought intensely and bravely for a health insurance mandate here that would cover treatment for autistic children, is a new low in its pro-health insurance company agenda.

The editorial (Movin' on in: State loses some, gains even more July 13, 2010) also cites an article by two “Research Fellows” with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA), which makes dubious claims about population growth in the state.

OCPA is an ultra-conservative think tank that engages in faux, GOP-sponsored intellectualism that gives newspapers like The Oklahoman a way to attack decent Oklahomans and further its destructive, anti-middle class agenda. In the OCPA and The Oklahoman world, the rich can do no wrong and are the only group deserving of decent health care.

The gist of the editorial is that it doesn’t matter that Rohde has announced he and his family are moving to Minnesota so he can get treatment coverage for his son, Nick, because, well, the state is gaining more residents from other places than it loses residents to other places. The Oklahoma Legislature has declined to make insurance coverage available for autism despite Rohde’s intensive, articulate campaign.

The editorial included this little nasty paragraph:

Other families with autistic children may also leave. People move for a variety of reasons — jobs, cost of living, safety, etc. — and more people are coming to Oklahoma than leaving it.

The Oklahoman: Hurray, we’re only getting the healthy people now. Hurray, “families with autistic children may also leave”! Let’s just hope none of these new people have kids with illnesses, especially autism. Well, shoot-fahr, maybe we can just run them out, too!

There’s no discussion in the editorial of the real, pressing issue of providing insurance coverage for autism, only a crass, calculated overview of whether the issue will affect population growth. In other words, who cares about kids like Nick here? It’s population growth that matters, not treating illness, right? To take it further, given the newspaper’s hysterical response to recent health care reform, who cares about health coverage for anyone in Oklahoma who can’t afford it?

The short article the editorial cites claiming 56,000 people since 2005 have moved into the state from other places is filled with speculation and has an obvious political agenda to say the least. Written by J. Scott Moody and Wendy Warcholik, described in the editorial as OCPA Research Fellows and George Mason University economists, the article admits a lack of evidence for its overall thesis:

Unfortunately, the data do not provide any information as to the characteristics of these new residents. Are they empty-nesters moving to retire in Oklahoma? Are they young families moving for a better lifestyle (jobs, affordable housing, good education, etc.)?

Or are they people who have simply moved here during The Great Recession when Oklahoma’s economy was still resilient? And what about this 56,000 number? Is it really that significant? That’s five years at about 10,000 or so a year. Wow, astounding growth! We also lost residents as well.

In other words, there’s no evidence that people are moving to Oklahoma in big numbers because it’s a great state that does things like deny insurance coverage for the treatment of autism. But that’s what The Oklahoman and, by extension, the OCPA wants you to believe.

(I tried to find information on Moody and Warcholik at the George Mason University site, but only came up with this about Warcholik’s 2002 dissertation. Neither Moody nor Warcholik are currently listed as faculty in the Economic Department’s faculty listing on the George Mason site. They both have apparently been connected to The Tax Foundation, a conservative, anti-tax organization. It’s disingenuous for the editorial to list them as “George Mason University economists” unless they work at the university full-time as professors.)

Incredibly, The Oklahoman editor Ed Kelley just recently lamented the fact the state wasn’t growing fast enough, which directly contradicts Moody’s and Warcholik’s rosy assessment of Oklahoma.

So which is it? Are people flocking here from other states because of how great the state is to raise a family—just as along as no one is sick, of course, especially with autism—or do the 2009 U.S. Census numbers, as Kelley argues, show the state actually needs more population?

The newspaper’s editorial is supposedly attacking claims that including an autistic insurance mandate here could attract new residents, but its disingenuous approach reveals that the real agenda is merely to make sure Rohde and his supporters know who won out in the end, at least so far: Big insurance companies and the editorial writers at The Oklahoman. That’s about as ugly and nasty as it gets, especially when it includes a kid with an illness.

(Update: The Oklahoma Senate voted 36-12 to overide Gov. Brad Henry's veto of the two anti-abortion bills described below in this post.)

A relatively few Oklahoma Senators can do the right thing by sustaining Gov. Brad Henry’s veto of two anti-abortion bills.

One bill, House Bill 2780, would require women seeking abortions to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a description of it before the procedure was performed. The other bill, House Bill 2656, would prohibit “wrongful life” lawsuits against physicians who didn’t inform a woman of medical information that might lead to an abortion.

Both bills should absolutely not become law here. Henry’s vetoes were reasoned and pragmatic. The ultrasound bill is extreme government intrusion and doesn’t allow exceptions for victims of rape and incest. Henry argued that the bill is most likely unconstitutional as well.

State Sen. Andrew Rice, an opponent of the bill, has pointed out that the bill would require medical staff to use an invasive vaginal ultrasound for image clarity.

Rice said, in a widely circulated quote, “You're going to force someone to undergo an invasive medical procedure. You have to invasively put an instrument inside the woman. This could be your 15-year-old daughter who was raped."

Henry vetoed the wrongful life bill because he argued it could enable negligent doctors to withhold information without any repercussions. Who in the world would want a doctor to withhold medical information about her pregnancy?

The Oklahoma House has already overridden Henry’s vetoes. The Senate vote could happen as earlier as Tuesday. The overrides need a three-fourth majority because the bills were passed with emergency clauses. The Senate voted 35-11 to approve the bills, and 36 votes are needed to override the veto. There are 48 senators.

Courageous senators willing to do the right thing by standing up against this right-wing extremism should stop these bills.