Schools use parents’ tax dollars to fight pro-parent bill
Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
Fed up with local school boards that have been unresponsive to parental requests for full-time, in-person student instruction, parents across Oklahoma have urged state lawmakers to change Oklahoma law to allow recall elections for school-board members.
While parents anticipated opposition to that effort, few expected to have their own education taxes diverted from the classroom to lobbying efforts in opposition to recall elections that would empower those same parents.
“That’s actually really shocking that our tax dollars are paying to fight us,” said Danica Norman, a parent in the Owasso school district. “That is mind-blowing.”
“It is ridiculous,” said Matt Thompson, a parent in the Deer Creek district.
At the Oklahoma Legislature, the Oklahoma State School Boards Association (OSSBA) has been the leading public opponent of Senate Bill 210, which would allow for recall elections of school-board members under certain circumstances. (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22%20INT/SB/SB210%20INT.PDF)
The OSSBA is, effectively, a taxpayer-funded entity, although it is technically considered a private organization. The OSSBA is funded with payments from its member school districts, which are taxpayer-funded and pay OSSBA dues from school budgets. In exchange for those payments, the OSSBA provides schools with services that include lobbying at the Oklahoma Capitol.
Thus, parents are paying taxes to school districts that then effectively use those taxes to oppose parents’ efforts to increase parental influence in school districts.
In its public position statements, the OSSBA says it will fight for “protection against recall” for school-board members and promote efforts to “minimize liability of individual school board members.” (https://www.ossba.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Position-Statements-2018.pdf)
In a Feb. 1 legislative alert (https://ift.tt/2Zzs56u ), the OSSBA declared that recall elections “take away time and resources from the most important focus of a school board member: the students.”
Yet one district shows how the OSSBA’s anti-recall lobbying may potentially protect not students, but school-board members who turn a blind eye to reported sexual abuse of students.
In 2020, the State Board of Education placed Oologah-Talala Public Schools district on probationary accreditation status and publicly censured the Oologah-Talala board of education and the school’s superintendent “for your roles in contributing to a school culture in which student complaints were treated dismissively, even while five District teachers have faced the loss of their certification following allegations of sexualized misconduct with students.” (https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Oologah-Talala%20-%20Probation%20and%20Reprimand.pdf )
A lawsuit (https://ift.tt/37C8qHr ) has been filed against Oologah-Talala Public Schools on behalf of two female students. Among the claims stated in the lawsuit is that Oologah-Talala “failed to provide its students an environment free of a sexual predator.”
Among the five Oologah-Talala staff members accused of sexual misconduct with students was teacher and coach Trent Winters, who was accused of making numerous sexual comments to female students, including one instance where he “unintentionally” made contact with a student’s breasts and reportedly said (https://ift.tt/3pHEIar), “You liked that didn’t you?” When the student said she did not, Winters reportedly replied, “There is more of that where that came from.”
The lawsuit accuses Oologah-Talala of “failing to investigate Winters properly, before and after these referenced allegations,” states that the school district “hired Winters with knowledge that he had been previously accused of sexual misconduct and harassment of students at his prior employment,” and says that “Winter’s sexual misconduct and harassment of Plaintiffs continued after OTPS had actual notice of Winters’ misconduct.”
As a member of OSSBA, Oologah-Talala Public Schools’ taxpayer funds can help partially fund efforts to kill the recall-election legislation that would otherwise allow parents to forcibly remove members of that district’s board.
Thompson, the Deer Creek parent, works in human resources and, as part of that profession, is involved in the background-check process for many large companies.
“I can tell you that anybody else, in any other line of work, if they were caught to have a background sex-offender check not clear, the people who allowed that to happen would all be held accountable, which could lead to them being fired,” Thompson said. “That’s just how it is.”
But under current law in Oklahoma, school board members who fail to implement appropriate policies to prevent the hiring of sex offenders in schools, or fail to remove reported sex offenders from school settings, do not face automatic removal without individual criminal prosecution and conviction. Those board members may even retain their positions for several more years before facing the voters again.
That’s one of several reasons parents say recall elections should be allowed for school-board members. Under current law, Thompson noted parents have little power even in extreme situations such as Oologah-Talala.
“We can’t do anything,” Thompson said. “We can’t get those people to not show up at our building anymore because they have the power to just keep making decisions.”
In its argument against Senate Bill 210, the OSSBA declared that school-board elections “are accountability in action” and that parents “have the opportunity to choose new board members or run for office when a board member’s term is up.”
The OSSBA also argued that school board members “must focus on students, not what is popular. Governance shouldn’t be a popularity contest, and board members shouldn’t face a recall election for making tough decisions.”
But critics note that school-board members’ terms can run as long as five years, and many board members have been elected with little real public support, due in part to the irregular dates on which school-board elections are conducted.
In this month’s school-board elections, blogger Michael Bates noted that a multi-candidate race in the Tulsa school district—one of Oklahoma’s largest—involved just 379 out of 15,770 eligible voters, or 2.4 percent of those eligible to participate. The winner received just 201 votes—meaning the school-board member was seated with the support of only 1.2 percent of voters in the district. (https://ift.tt/3sgHHYO)
Critics also note the “tough decisions” touted by the OSSBA have involved school closures that experts say are creating significant loss of academic learning and serious emotional-and-social harm to students, and that those closures have occurred even as surrounding districts with similar demographics have successfully reopened for full-time instruction.
In the worst instances, like Oologah-Talala Public Schools, critics note the decisions made by school-board members can have even worse, lifelong consequences for students.
The OSSBA did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
While school districts may use parents’ own tax dollars to fight efforts that would provide parents with greater influence in local schools, Norman said that will not stop families from advocating for their children.
“The parents that are involved, that are upset with the board, that are fighting against the board, are going to continue to seek out solutions,” Norman said. “So if they continue to bow up against us, it doesn’t matter. Parents are going to find a way to get a solution.”
NOTE: Ray Carter’s story first appeared at the website of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA): https://ift.tt/37Bbrru . It is reposted here with permission.
Schools use parents’ tax dollars to fight pro-parent bill Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
0 Comments
Oklahoma City, February 20, 2021 – This is not complex.
From the New American Bible translation, words that reached my inner core over the last two days.
The Pandemic still rages, but an end of some sort seems within reach.
The bitter cold is leaving the Great Plains, at least for now.
And then came these words of comfort and challenge.
Perhaps they will bless some among readers late this day.
It’s Saturday night, but Sunday’s coming.
Isaiah 58: 1-9a
Thus says the Lord GOD:
Cry out full-throated and unsparingly,
lift up your voice like a trumpet blast;
Tell my people their wickedness,
and the house of Jacob their sins.
They seek me day after day,
and desire to know my ways,
Like a nation that has done what is just
and not abandoned the law of their God;
They ask me to declare what is due them,
pleased to gain access to God.
“Why do we fast, and you do not see it?
afflict ourselves, and you take no note of it?”
Lo, on your fast day you carry out your own pursuits,
and drive all your laborers.
Yes, your fast ends in quarreling and fighting,
striking with wicked claw.
Would that today you might fast
so as to make your voice heard on high!
Is this the manner of fasting I wish,
of keeping a day of penance:
That a man bow his head like a reed
and lie in sackcloth and ashes?
Do you call this a fast,
a day acceptable to the LORD?
This, rather, is the fasting that I wish:
releasing those bound unjustly,
untying the thongs of the yoke;
Setting free the oppressed,
breaking every yoke;
Sharing your bread with the hungry,
sheltering the oppressed and the homeless;
Clothing the naked when you see them,
and not turning your back on your own.
Then your light shall break forth like the dawn,
and your wound shall quickly be healed;
Your vindication shall go before you,
and the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.
Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer,
you shall cry for help, and he will say: Here I am!
And, From Genesis Chapter 9: 8-15.
God said to Noah and to his sons with him:
“See, I am now establishing my covenant with you
and your descendants after you
and with every living creature that was with you:
all the birds, and the various tame and wild animals
that were with you and came out of the ark.
I will establish my covenant with you,
that never again shall all bodily creatures be destroyed
by the waters of a flood;
there shall not be another flood to devastate the earth.”
God added:
“This is the sign that I am giving for all ages to come,
of the covenant between me and you
and every living creature with you:
I set my bow in the clouds to serve as a sign
of the covenant between me and the earth.
When I bring clouds over the earth,
and the bow appears in the clouds,
I will recall the covenant I have made
between me and you and all living beings,
so that the waters shall never again become a flood
to destroy all mortal beings.”
Scripture and Hope: Isaiah’s Prophecy, and God’s Promise Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
Colleen McCarty, Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform
The following commentary was sent Friday (February 19) to CapitolBeatOK.com, The City Sentinel newspaper and other news organizations. McCarty spoke on behalf of Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR).
Oklahoma City – We applaud the Senate Public Safety Committee for moving forward on meaningful criminal justice reform with Senate Bill 704. Oklahoma has had one of the highest imprisonment rates in the country for decades.
Our incarceration crisis is caused in large part by the use of sentence enhancements, which add years, decades and even life in prison to a person’s sentence. As a result, Oklahoma hands down some of the harshest sentences in the nation.
These long sentences have historically pushed the Department of Corrections budget to half a billion dollars.
Senate Bill 704 would eliminate sentence enhancements for most nonviolent offenses (not including domestic abuse felonies, animal cruelty, DUI causing great bodily injury, or offenses requiring sex offender registration).
This reform could safely reduce Oklahoma’s prison population by almost 1,400 people over the next decade and save Oklahoma taxpayers at least $137 million.
Those resources could be reinvested in crime prevention and victim support programs to support safer communities in Oklahoma.
Bipartisan organizations, Oklahoma business leaders, policy experts, advocates and Oklahoma families are supportive of Senate Bill 704. We encourage the Senate Appropriations Committee to approve the bill.
Oklahoma needs meaningful reform and it cannot happen without reducing the harsh impact of sentence enhancements.
Note: Colleen McCarty is Policy Counsel with Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform.
Justice reform advocates applaud Senate Public Safety Committee for passage of meaningful sentencing reform Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
from Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform
Authored by Senator Dave Rader, a Tulsa Republican, Senate Bill 704 is OCJR’s most ambitious legislation this session. S.B. 704 has the potential to help Oklahomans serving excessive sentences for truly non-violent crimes while saving the state over $100 Million dollars over the next ten years.
Oklahoma has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the country, driven by long sentences and time spent behind bars, particularly for drug and property offenses.
A review of sentence enhancements across Oklahoma found that they are frequently used and have the highest impact when applied to non-violent drug and property offenses, resulting in 50-60 percent longer sentences.
Research shows that these long sentences do not protect public safety and simply add extra months and years of incarceration that taxpayers must pay for. By eliminating these enhancements for most non-violent offenses and applying this reform retroactively, Oklahoma can make sentencing fairer, safely reduce its prison population, and save taxpayer dollars. [For summary on this bill’s progress, see: https://ift.tt/3sdtEmL]
SUMMARY
S.B. 704 would prohibit prison sentences longer than the statutory maximum set by the legislature for non-violent offenses (with some exceptions) by eliminating sentence enhancements that increase prison terms dramatically, sometimes up to life in prison, if the person has non-violent prior convictions. S.B. 704 also eliminates many felony pattern enhancements listed in drug statutes. S.B. 704 provides relief to people who have received an excessive sentence under these provisions in the past. The legislature can amend the statute at any time and any crimes later defined as violent would be subject to sentence enhancements.
EXCLUSIONS
Under S.B. 704, people can continue to be sentenced beyond the statutory maximum if the person has any of the following prior or current felony convictions:
• Offenses defined as violent
• Any domestic abuse felony
• Offenses requiring registration as a sex offender
• Animal cruelty
• DUI that causes great bodily injury
The following felony pattern enhancements will remain in place under S.B. 704 and people can continue to receive a longer sentence if they were convicted of the same offense previously:
• DUI
• Drug offenses involving a minor
• Drug offenses that occur within 2,000 feet of a school, park, public housing, or daycare center
RETROACTIVITY
Under S.B. 704, people with an enhanced sentence for many non-violent offenses would be eligible for resentencing or commutation if their current sentence is longer than the statutory maximum. People in prison would be added to an accelerated commutation docket. Anyone with an eligible sentence could apply to their court of origin for resentencing. Victims would be notified if a sentence is being reviewed for commutation or resentencing.
IMPACT
S.B. 704 would help people with excessive sentences for non-violent offenses, like:
• A woman sentenced to 18 years in prison for forging a check. What is usually a two-year maximum sentence was enhanced to four to LIFE because of two low-level property and drug convictions from more than a decade earlier.
• A man sentenced to 20 years in prison for stealing a debit card and a ring. What is a five-year maximum sentence was enhanced to four to LIFE because of two previous DUI convictions.
• A woman sentenced to 15 years in prison for drug possession with intent to distribute. What is a seven-year maximum sentence was enhanced to four to LIFE because of two prior convictions for writing a fraudulent check and drug possession.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Will this reform lower our incarceration rate?
Yes. A review of sentence enhancements across Oklahoma found that they are frequently used (80 percent of cases) and have the highest impact when applied to non-violent drug and property offenses, resulting in 50 to 60 percent longer sentences.
(https://ift.tt/3s6UY6k)
Will this reform allow people with many convictions to get off easy?
No. People with prior non-violent convictions can still be sentenced up to the maximum sentence set by the legislature for any non-violent offense. If a person has any prior or current convictions excluded from S.B. 704, a sentence enhancement can still be applied.
Will this reform prevent judges and juries from considering a person’s prior history at sentencing?
Judges and juries can still take criminal history into account when deciding an appropriate sentence, and people with prior convictions can still receive the maximum sentence.
Why not focus on first time crimes?
Sentences for people without priors aren’t driving the prison population, sentences for people with priors (due to enhancements) are. About 80 percent of Oklahomans with non-violent priors receive enhanced sentences, sometimes up to life in prison. People with prior convictions have already paid their debt to society and deserve a real chance at redemption.
Don’t longer sentences for drug and property crimes make us safer?
Locking people up because of a substance use disorder or for an offense linked to poverty is ineffective and does not address the root cause of the crimes committed. The best way to keep our communities safe and hold people accountable is to make sure resources are shifted to rehabilitation, substance abuse treatment, and job training programs.
Will this reform save taxpayer money?
Yes. This reform is projected to save over $100 million taxpayer dollars within the next 10 years. Those savings can then be used for treatment, education, and to support survivors of crime.
Didn’t Oklahoma voters reject this same reform in State Question 805?
Oklahoma voters support reforms that will safely reduce the prison population and limit excessive sentences. Unlike S.Q. 805, S.B. 704 is not a constitutional amendment and is a compromised solution that excludes many offenses voters were uncomfortable with, including domestic abuse and animal cruelty.
Note: This summary of Senate Bill 704 first appeared on the website of Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform
[https://ift.tt/3uckOHP ]
The mission of Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR), posted on the group’s website, “is to advocate for criminal justice reform in Oklahoma through research-driven policy and reform efforts that improve public safety by reducing the state’s dependence on incarceration. Safe criminal justice reform saves taxpayer dollars and allows for reinvestment in alternatives to incarceration that ultimately benefits the individual, their family and the community.”
Oklahoma Sentencing Reform – Senate Bill 704 Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK Association Touts EPA Registration: Copper Surfaces Provide Continuous Protection Against SARS-CoV-22/18/2021
Staff Report
MCLEAN, Virginia (Newswire.com) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced recently that certain copper alloys provide effective long-term protection against viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19.
The EPA's approval makes these alloys the first and only products to be registered for nationwide use with residual, long-lasting efficacy claims against viruses.
This EPA action granted an amended registration to the Copper Development Association (CDA), allowing CDA to add unprecedented virucidal claims to its existing registration which currently permits claims against bacteria, including the antibiotic-resistant hospital superbug MRSA.
(https://ift.tt/3q56rCK)
"The EPA's action enables the broad-spectrum and enduring public health benefits of copper alloys to be deployed in the fight against COVID-19 and future viral pathogens," said Thom Passek, President of CDA.
"We are grateful for EPA's forethought and proactive support to bring this innovative and scientifically-proven solution to the table."
To earn this registration, CDA provided extensive data on harder-to-kill viruses demonstrating long-lasting virucidal efficacy. Results showed that certain copper alloys continuously kill >99.9 percent of several viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 and Rhinovirus, within 2 hours of contact.
Products made from copper alloys can form a wide range of durable surfaces, including doorknobs, handrails, desktops and much more. The alloys are the first and only products to be included on the EPA's List N Appendix (https://ift.tt/3s41fQc), which contains virucidal products with residual, 24/7 effectiveness as opposed to conventional disinfectants that only work upon application.
Copper alloy surfaces are a supplement to, and not a substitute for, standard infection control practices, including the need to follow public health guidelines and critical precautions, such as mask wearing, social distancing and ventilation.
Note: The Copper Development Association Inc. is described as "the not-for-profit, market development, engineering and information services arm of the North American copper industry, chartered to enhance and expand markets for copper and its alloys."
Learn more on their blog (https://www.copper.org/ ). Or, follow them on Twitter (https://twitter.com/thinkcopper).
Association Touts EPA Registration: Copper Surfaces Provide Continuous Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
Pat McGuigan
A new fiscal analysis concludes proposed legislation from state Senator Dave Rader, R-Tulsa, could trim Oklahoma’s prison population by around 1,400 people over the next decade. That projection is based on provisions in the Rader Bill that would eliminate sentence enhancements for non-violent offenses. The analysis projects anticipated savings that could “fund victim support services, and support programs that address the root causes of crime -- helping to make Oklahoma communities safer.”
The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) analysis projects savings of $137 million if the tendency of local prosecutors to apply “sentence enhancements for low-level, nonviolent offenses” is effectively curbed. In a press release, OCPA analysts note that prosecutors are applying such enhancements in 80 percent of eligible cases.
According to a sketch of the underlying study, released today (Thursday, February 18) in Oklahoma City, the enhancements for non-violent offenses increase “prison time for people convicted of drug offenses, on average, by 61 percent (from 5.3 to 8.5 years) and for people convicted of property crimes by 47 percent (from 3.9 to 5.7 years). (These comparisons are based on people sent to prison for the same crimes and who had prior convictions, but who did not receive a sentence enhancement.)”
As stated in the press release accompanying circulation of the OCPA study, “The overuse of sentence enhancements is a significant cause of Oklahoma’s unusually long prison sentences, which research has shown do not make communities safer.”
Rader’s legislation is Senate Bill 704. A member of the state Legislature’s upper chamber since his election in 2016, Rader’s Tulsa roots run deep. He is a Will Rogers High School graduate and a 1978 graduate of the University of Tulsa, where he later served as head football coach.
Jonathan Small, president of OCPA, said in a statement sent to CapitolBeatOK, The City Sentinel and other news organizations, “Limiting sentence enhancements does not limit the baseline maximum sentence someone can receive. It just stops district attorneys from enhancing a sentencing to 18 years in prison for forging a check, which is usually a two year maximum sentence, because of prior offenses that occurred almost a decade prior.”
OCPA is a public policy research group generally designated as conservative in underlying philosophy. The group’s studies support limited government and a free-market economy. The group has for many years pressed for what are characterized as “right on crime” reforms for sentencing strictures.
Small said in the February 18 press release, “We know there are better, evidence-based ways to spend taxpayer dollars more effectively and efficiently, and the state needs to be a better steward of those funds.”
Trent England, a policy policy specialist at OCPA, reflected, “The Department of Corrections spends more than half a billion dollars every year. That’s more than the state spends on public safety and mental health combined, but if we continue on our present course, it’s not enough.
“Either Oklahoma taxpayers are going to spend a lot more on prisons, or we’re going to change course -- and that starts by limiting our overuse of sentence enhancements.”
England is the David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow for the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.
Concerning analysis in the detailed study, Thursday’s press release continued:
“If sentence enhancement reforms are not passed, Oklahoma’s prison population will grow to more than 25,428 in the next 10 years. This is not due to more Oklahomans committing crimes, but because of policies that allow Oklahomans to be incarcerated for longer sentences. S.B. 704 will reduce the prison population by 1,400 while still keeping communities safe.
The projected savings of $137 million from S.B. 704 could relieve budget pressure at the Department of Corrections, fund victim support services, and support programs that address the root causes of crime -- helping to make Oklahoma communities safer.
The OCPA analysis of Sen. Rader’s bill is entitled “Fiscal Analysis of Senate Bill 704: Oklahoma Taxpayers Could Save $137 million.”
The study is detailed (several thousand words and 12 pages in length). The analysis seems carefully crafted to provide context and restraint in its conclusions.
In the document, OCPA shared methodological assumptions and gives a range of possible outcomes from the hoped-for reforms in the Rader Bill.
On the final page of the analysis the issue of taxpayer-savings is presented:
“The minimum savings estimate uses only the marginal cost savings for the entire period. This is likely far too low because of the significant reduction below capacity. The maximum savings estimate uses the average cost savings for the entire period. This is likely too high because in the first year or two of SB 704 being in effect, it would not be possible to close a facility or otherwise cut fixed costs enough to achieve this level of savings. The expected savings estimate combines these two approaches by using the marginal cost savings for the first several years of the SB 704 projection but assuming that prison closures or other major adjustments based on the lower prison population would kick in during 2025, resulting in average cost savings being a more appropriate measure.”
The full analysis can be viewed online. To read it, cut-and-paste this link:
https://ift.tt/3ucdSKM
NOTE: A member of the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame, Pat McGuigan is the author of three books and editor of seven, including ‘Crime and Punishment in Modern America’ (1985).
Sentencing Reform legislation, aimed at non-violent offenses, would protect safety, reduce prison population in Oklahoma: new analysis Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK OKLAHOMA CITY - State Rep. Andy Fugate, D-Del City, won committee passage of a bill to amend the Oklahoma Constitution and allow more money to be saved in the state’s Rainy Day Fund. House Joint Resolution 1001 passed the House Rules Committee in a unanimous vote of 9-0 this week. It changes the Rainy Day maximum savings calculation to include all state spending when determining the savings “cap.” “Currently, we base our Rainy Day savings on a small fraction of our overall state spending. We wouldn’t do that in our home finances and we shouldn’t do it with the people’s money,” said Fugate. “Today’s vote puts our state one step closer to having a real savings account.” The Constitutional change, once signed by the Governor, would be voted on by the people through a state question. The Constitutional Reserve Fund, better known as the Rainy Day Fund, was created in 1985 to prepare Oklahoma for downturns in the economy. However, recent downturns have shown that basing our savings plan on a portion of the state’s budget is a recipe for failure. Oklahoma needs to account for all state spending in our savings decisions. “It’s reassuring to see broad bipartisan support for this common-sense measure,” Fugate said. “I believe the people need a say on this issue, and we should give it to them. We need a solid plan for economic downturns and the best way to accomplish that is to change the formula.” H.J.R. 1001 is now eligible to be considered on the House floor. Oklahoma City Rep. Andy Fugate’s State Question Proposal Unanimously Passes Committee Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
OKLAHOMA CITY – Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Roger Thompson, R-Okemah, issued the following statement after the Oklahoma State Board of Equalization (BOE) met to certify revenues available for appropriation for the Fiscal Year 2022 budget.
The amount initially certified by the board in December was $8.46 billion. The amount certified Tuesday (February 15) was $9.64 billion.
“I am encouraged by the new numbers certified ... during the Board of Equalization meeting. This speaks well of the economy in Oklahoma. Small business owners have been innovative, diligent, and persistent despite all of the challenges during this pandemic.
“Oklahoma has benefitted from federal dollars, which helped these numbers. I am very optimistic for FY [Fiscal Year] 2022, but cautiously optimistic about FY 2023.
“This is not the year to spend every dollar. We need to have funds easily accessible if we have another surge in COVID cases — money that can be used to pay for more testing, vaccines, and other critical needs.”
Oklahoma Senate Appropriations Chair comments on this week’s revenue certification Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
OKLAHOMA CITY – Sen. Rob Standridge, R-Norman, last week released a statement after the Oklahoma State Medical Association (OSMA) and other health organizations asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to issue an injunction against Medicaid managed care contracts.
“The Oklahoma State Medical Association contends the Oklahoma Health Care Authority went outside its authority and circumvented the legislature in implementing $2 billion in managed care contracts. I completely agree and fully support the OSMA’s efforts.
“We’ve been told that these managed care companies would somehow improve care in our state. However, a Dec. 16, 2020, study from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that there are likely very serious, widespread problems with managed care plans throughout the nation, and these problems are leading to ‘injury and neglect’ of patients on Medicaid.
“It is absolutely irresponsible for our state to implement such a potentially dangerous and massive change to our Medicaid system. It disregarded the legislative branch, and blatantly circumvented the constitutionally mandated appropriation process of the Senate, House and Governor.”
Sen. Standridge backs Oklahoma State Medical Association’s court challenge to state’s managed care contracts Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
The Oklahoma State Medical Association (OSMA) and the Oklahoma Hospital Association (OHA) have been vocal critics of Gov. Kevin Stitt’s proposal to use managed care services in Oklahoma’s Medicaid system, which Stitt says could improve patient treatment and outcomes, reducing the growth of Medicaid’s taxpayer expense.
But, while the OSMA and OHA have both opposed managed care, neither group has identified any other way to control the spiraling costs of Medicaid, which has been consuming an ever-larger share of state tax dollars and may now see explosive growth due to expansion of Medicaid to include able-bodied adults.
The OSMA and OHA are not alone in ducking the question. Of more than 30 lawmakers who have publicly criticized use of managed care, none have offered an alternative means of cost control.
For this article, the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs reached out to the OSMA, OHA, and lawmakers who have criticized Stitt’s proposal and asked them how they propose to control costs without managed care.
[These links suggested for background: https://ift.tt/3u3o0pn
and https://ift.tt/3quMiX7] .
A week later, neither the OSMA nor the OHA had offered any solutions, and only two lawmakers had responded to the question. Only one of those two lawmakers discussed how costs might be controlled.
Stitt has argued that using private contractors to manage oversight of Medicaid patients will ensure those patients obtain routine checkups and other forms of care that identify medical problems before they become severe. In the current Medicaid system, patients often wait until a medical problem has progressed before seeking care — potentially requiring hospitalization — or they use expensive emergency room services for routine care.
Officials at the Oklahoma Health Care Authority have estimated that managed care could reduce hospitalization among Medicaid patients by 40 percent and reduce mental-health care costs by 20 percent if preventative care, including drug treatment, is employed earlier in the process.
In his State of the State address earlier this month, Stitt said, “With Medicaid expansion now in our Constitution, this is the perfect opportunity to reimagine health care delivery in Oklahoma. It’s time to focus on outcomes and not just paying invoices. Forty states have found managed care is the best way forward: Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Tennessee, Florida, even California and Illinois. It’s not a red state or blue state thing. It’s the smart thing to do. In fact, every other state with Medicaid expansion also uses managed care. Every other state.”
Policymakers have long struggled with controlling the cost of Medicaid. From 1999 to 2019, total expenditures on Medicaid in Oklahoma — adjusted for inflation and including both state-and-federal dollars — surged from $2.33 billion to $5.6 billion.
The program’s growing cost has diverted funds from other programs, as noted (https://ift.tt/3ppebhO ) recently by the chancellor of the State Regents for Higher Education, who pointed out that money was being taken away from education to support Medicaid.
Oklahoma is not alone in facing that problem. In October 2020, officials with the Galen Institute and the Foundation for Government Accountability noted (https://ift.tt/37oMr6S), states spent more than three times more on education than on Medicaid. Now the numbers are roughly equivalent.”
The cost of Oklahoma’s Medicaid program is now poised to increase by an even-larger share each year following passage of an initiative measure that expanded Medicaid to include up to 628,000 able-bodied Oklahomans.
While supporters of expansion claimed it would require $164 million in new state spending, the budget chairman in the Oklahoma Senate has warned that estimate is a “best-case scenario” and the state cost could surge to $246 million this year. (https://www.ocpathink.org/post/medicaid-expansion-costs-soaring?utm_source=OCPA+Master&utm_campaign=31c55421cd-Freedom+Flash+April+18_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1acebeac5c-31c55421cd-137278429).
Even that estimate may be optimistic. Based on current Medicaid expenses and a previous study commissioned by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority that predicted up to 628,000 Oklahomans would become eligible under expansion, the state cost of Medicaid expansion could be as much as $374 million annually. The $164 million estimate is based on only 200,000 people enrolling in Medicaid as the result of expansion.
Other states that have expanded Medicaid to include able-bodied adults have consistently underestimated both enrollment and the associated costs of the expansion population. In 2018, the Foundation for Government Accountability found (https://thefga.org/research/budget-crisis-three-parts-obamacare-bankrupting-taxpayers/)
states that expanded Medicaid signed up more than twice as many able-bodied adults as predicted and experienced cost overruns of 157 percent.
The possibility that managed care may reduce non-emergency use of hospital emergency rooms may partly explain why the membership of the Oklahoma Hospital Association opposes managed care and offers no alternatives.
Officials with the Galen Institute and the Foundation for Government Accountability have noted there is “robust evidence that Medicaid expansion significantly increases emergency room utilization for non-emergent conditions” and that hospitals in expansion states “have reported ER visit increases are twice the rate in non-expansion states.”
The fact that non-emergent use of emergency rooms is a revenue generator for many providers has raised moral questions even within the medical community.
A March 2019 article (https://ift.tt/2OCjWMj) in the AMA Journal of Ethics considered the question, “Should hospitals engage in proactive population health initiatives if they result in decreased revenue from their emergency departments?” The authors concluded that “treating emergency departments purely as revenue streams violates both legal and moral standards.”
Officials with the Stitt administration have stressed that managed care will not reduce overall costs, but only slow the rate of growth. Opponents of managed care, however, have not offered any measures that would even slow the rate of growth.
Of the state lawmakers who have publicly criticized Stitt’s plan to use managed care in Medicaid, Rep. Wendi Stearman, R-Collinsville, was one of only two who responded when asked for comment.
Stearman noted that the press release she signed her name to asked Stitt to “work cooperatively with the state House of Representatives and the state Senate to ensure Oklahomans receive the health care management program that best meets their needs.”
Rep. Stearman said she has concerns about a hurried process, but favors finding “the method that will least affect the taxpayers of Oklahoma.” Based on current data, she said the least-expensive way to handle Medicaid expansion may ultimately involve use of managed care.
Note: Ray Carter is director of the Center for Independent Journalism, where this report was first posted: https://ift.tt/2ZEbbUx. It is re-posted with permission.
A long-time reporter and analyst of state events, Carter offices at the headquarters of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) office near the Oklahoma State Capitol.
Medicaid managed care opponents silent on alternatives Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK |
Pat McGuiganThe dean of all Oklahoma Journalism, Mr Patrick McGuigan; has a rich history of service in many aspects of both covering the news and producing the information that the public needs to know. Archives
September 2021
Categories |