![](https://www.soonerpolitics.org/uploads/1/6/2/2/16224166/capitolbeat-vertical2_orig.png)
Coming to a boil, after the Ides of March (Managed Care of Medicaid Expansion)
Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
![]()
https://ift.tt/3lZYAVM
Oklahoma City – In Mid-March, a trio of attorneys defended, in a reply brief on behalf of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA), Oklahoma’s managed care plan for Medicaid Expansion.
The team, under the leadership of former U.S. Attorney Robert G. McCampbell, argued in pointed and efficient ways to favor the OHCA plan to contract with four health care entities.
The plan announced in late January would carry through on Governor Kevin Stitt’s announced intention to bring into practice the expansion of Medicaid voters approved in a historic ballot initiative last year.
(The program was broadly summarized in this series’ originating installment, “Starting to get down in the weeds,” March 11 – https://www.city-sentinel.com/2021/03/starting-to-get-down-in-the-weeds-spring-allergies-but-rays-of-sunshine-for-managed-care-advocates/ )
McCampbell’s cadre wove together a listing of precedents and long-standing state agency practices to bolster the Stitt-OHCA vision.
Docs on the Attack
Their work – submitted at the state Supreme Court at the Ides of March (the fifteenth) – was in reply to a legal brief advancing a “petition for declaratory relief” filed February 11 on behalf of the Oklahoma State Medical Association (OSMA) and state Dental and Osteopathic associations, the state Society of Anesthesiologists and the Oklahoma Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
As detailed in the second installment of this series (“Analyzing and Stirring the Pot: The fight over Managed Care for Medicaid Expansion is serious business,” March 18 – https://ift.tt/3lYIvQn ), the aforementioned groups consider the Stitt-OHCA plan a “Health Care Holdup.”
Although courts at all levels of American government can sometimes indeed craft judicious and nuanced results, in this matter the state High Court is being asked to declare every jot and tittle of the Managed Care framework null and void.
In a critical reading, the OMSA-led lawsuit’s central charge seemed to be that the Stitt-OHCA plan must fall because it is an example of NIH (“not invented here,” i.e. at OSMA offices).
The McCampbell reply brief rebutted the foregoing assembly of power with references to case law, state constitutional strictures, standard administrative practices, state and federal statutes and other citations to support the state executive’s assertions in late January, and since that time.
A Lawyerly Reply Brief
In sum, countering the tag team of power-players who assailed the Stitt plan from the first moment, McCampbell’s submission documented the ways Oklahoma’s Legislature “has granted clear authority to the OHCA.”
To the extent the OHCA vision for Managed Care is a work in progress (and must remain so because any plans will in any case still be subject to federal approvals), McCampbell said there is no requirement for the Legislature to have set forth all program details before the state can move into developing program details to meet the new requirement for Medicaid Expansion.
Further, the agency has long-standing practices utilizing versions of managed care, as the McCampbell brief documents.
In the pro-managed-care presentation, new rules are not required for an emergent program rooted in existing law and, in any case, no one is (as critics asserted) “compelled” to enroll in the state Medicaid program.
This craftsmanship came in response to the OSMA lawsuit that hit Feb. 11, in the form of a comprehensive assault on the framework of OHCA’s power in existing state law.
Although (in File #119357) the OMSA frequently acknowledged the existence of statutory language allowing OHCA to “study the feasibility” of managed care — and to devise standard health care benefits packages and enter into contracts — and acknowledged the existence of “incidental powers” for the agency, the ubiquitous word “however” argued against actual use of any of those things.
McCampbell’s reply brief quoted directly from statutory language pointing to OHCA’s responsibility “for converting the present system of delivery of the Oklahoma Medicaid Program to a managed care system.”
The envisioned SoonerSelect program comes from this background, quoting the reply brief:
“Under the federal Medicaid laws, states may offer Medicaid benefits on a fee-for-service basis, through managed care plans, or both.”
Managed care systems are “subject to the approval of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)” under federal law.
As the McCampbell argument drives home, “Nationally, 40 states used capitated manage care plans to deliver Medicaid services as of July 2019, and 60 [percent] of all Medicaid beneficiaries received care through comprehensive risk based MCOs” [Managed Care Organizations].”
Nonetheless, there is much sound and fury, signifying something, as the Stitt-OHCA plan seeks to advance.
A couple of “live rounds” have reached the Legislature’s upper chamber, most notably House Resolution 91.
The measure from state Rep. Carol Bush, R-Tulsa, passed comfortably in the House of Representatives, but that is not necessarily indicative of its ultimate fate in the Senate. Time will tell.
The Bush Bill seeks to require a number of steps from the Oklahoma Health Care Authority that would, in the view of critics, erode executive authority and effective use of existing powers at the agency charged with administering much of the state’s health care system.
Senator Kim David makes the case
Oklahoma State Senator Kim David, R-Porter, is the Majority Floor Leader.
As the clashing rhetoric over the OHCA plan for management of Medicaid expansion intensifies, she offered some context in an exchange with this reporter.
Sen. David reflected that this year as a result of voter-approved expansion, “Medicaid will be available to those individuals who face economic and social barriers to improve their health outcomes. Helping these Oklahomans improve their health outcomes can be accomplished through a coordinated care model by connecting more Oklahomans to educational services that teach them the benefits of healthier behaviors and lifestyles.”
She pointed out, “Additionally, coordinated care models can help citizens connect with preventative services, including behavioral services, that can treat more serious illness and disease before it requires a much costlier trip to the emergency room. Far too many people rely on the emergency room as a primary care physician and a coordinated care model can help end this costly and less successful method of health care.”
Senator Rob Standridge opposes Managed Care
A sharply different view of managed care comes from state Senator Rob Standridge, R-Norman, who is also Majority Whip.
In a February release, which appeared at CapitolBeatOK.com, The City Sentinel newspaper website and elsewhere, he supported in toto the OSMA’s contentions:
“I completely agree and fully support the OSMA’s efforts.”
Sen. Standridge continued, “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.
The Standridge narrative continued, “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.”
In interviews, defenders of the managed care ideas have criticized the methodology and other aspects of the GAO study.
Senator David affirms support
As for the lay of the land, policy-wise, Sen. David, in her own way, pointed out that 2018 is not ancient history: “Oklahomans voted for Governor Stitt to fully lead the executive branch of government. They trusted his private sector experience and vision for Oklahoma.”
She believes, further, that the state’s chief executive officer “is right to focus on improving our health outcomes by getting more Oklahomans access to preventative care and services through a care coordination model. A healthier Oklahoma is a more productive and ultimately more successful Oklahoma.”
Continuing: “Oklahoma has consistently had some of the worst health outcomes in the nation. It’s time to look at what other states have done to improve health outcomes. When you do so, you see the states seeing gains in health outcomes are moving toward privatizing care coordination.”
Care coordination for a public service -- not to be confused with “privatization” of the systems of Medicaid and Medicare – “has time-and-again proven to be more flexible and innovative than the public sector. It’s time we took that lesson and applied it to the health care arena.”
Echoing outside analysts who have “gone deep” to examine the particulars of managed care models across the nation, Sen. David concluded her exchange with this writer, reflecting, “The move to a coordinated care model also will help the fiscal health of our state by helping Oklahomans improve their health outcomes and ultimately saving taxpayers money by lowering the costs of state-funded health care programs. Finally, a coordinated care model has the potential to lead to private-sector job creation, as we see an increased need for health care support staff to help Oklahomans access health educational and preventative services.”
The McCampbell reply brief made this request of the state Supreme Court, concerning the OSMA et al. lawsuit: “The Petitioners’ arguments that the Court should ignore the express language in the OHCA Act should be rejected.”
That is rather clear.
But remember, even with the “Ides” fading into memory, we are still in the time of March Madness. Clarity and precision is sometimes a matter of judgment – after a jump ball.
NOTE: This analysis first appeared at The Southwest Ledger (March 25). It is reposted here with permission.
Coming to a boil, after the Ides of March (Managed Care of Medicaid Expansion) Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
0 Comments
![]()
CapitolBeatOK Staff Report
Oklahoma City – Conservative leaders and policy experts from Right on Crime and the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs have released a statement on Senate Bill 334, under consideration at the State Legislature.
Criticism of the measure came from Jonathan Small, President of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, and Marilyn Davidson, State Director - Oklahoma, Right on Crime. The proposal has been assigned to the state House Budget and Appropriations Committee:
“We strongly oppose Senate Bill 334 and urge representatives in the House not to hear this bill. S.B. 334 would scale back the part of State Question 780 that reclassified low-level property offenses to misdemeanors. S.Q. 780 received overwhelming support from voters in 2016, and recent polling from WPA Intelligence shows that 76 percent of respondents continue to support it.
“Oklahoma voters want to see investments in mental health treatment, education and victim services, with a majority of respondents in favor of using funding to support these critical priorities.”
[link to polling data: https://ift.tt/31teoXM]
In the statement sent to The City Sentinel newspaper, CapitolBeatOK.com and other state news organizations, which was released Friday (March 26), Small and Davidson said:
“S.B. 334 would double the length of time to compile multiple property offenses together to create a felony offense. If signed into law, this bill will lead to more felony charges and excessive sentences, which would increase our prison population and would not make our communities safer.
“S.B. 334 is a step backward. If we want to deter crime and create safer communities, we need solutions that address the root causes of crime. Lawmakers should heed the overwhelming support of S.Q. 780 since its passage, and instead focus their time on evidence-based reforms that will improve public safety and save taxpayer money.”
Oklahoma criminal justice bill ‘a step in the wrong direction,’ conservatives leaders say Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK Analyzing and Stirring the Pot: Fight over Managed Care Medicaid Expansion is serious business3/22/2021 ![]() Pat McGuigan
OKLAHOMA CITY – Just after deadline for last week’s story (“Starting to get down in the weeds”), much of the medical establishment made official what everyone paying attention already knew – they don’t like the managed care plan for Medicaid expansion announced in January by Gov. Kevin Stitt and the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA). It was hardly breaking news, and in fact did not get as much attention as might have been expected in pre-pandemic times. Nonetheless, the big hitters came out swinging, characterizing (in a March 11 press release) Stitt’s plan as “a flawed scheme to privatize the state’s Medicaid system.” That’s not all. Representatives for the anti-coalition characterized managed care as more than just a bad idea. They deemed it a “Health Care Holdup” – complete with a new website full of familiar arguments. The assertions of a “holdup” are aggressive, indeed, but could be viewed as a classic example of stirring the pot, politically speaking, to smoke out the other side early in an important confrontation. As for that other side, the four managed care organizations (MCOs) Stitt and his team selected for Medicaid expansion were characterized, in the announcement press release, as “qualified and experienced” entities. Introducing the Cast of the This Spring’s Clash Blue Cross Blue Shield has been a staple in the Sooner State’s health insurance dynamic for 80 years. Humana Healthy Horizons extends the brand in Oklahoma of a group with 800,000 members nationwide. Oklahoma Complete Health (subsidiary of Centene) is already deeply involved in Sooner Select and its Specialty Children’s Plan. UnitedHealthcare is the ubiquitous behemoth (with long-term ties to the American Association of Retired Persons) involved in the full spectrum of health care systems, working with more than a million physicians and health professions, plus 6,500 hospitals and care facilities. The high-decibel foes of managed care include these state associations: Medical, Dental, Hospital, Osteopathic Association, Home Care and Hospice, Psychological, Pharmacists, Ambulance, and Medical Equipment Provider. Also among the opponents of managed care: Oklahoma Society of Anesthesiologists, American Academy of Pediatrics – Oklahoma Chapter, Alliance of Mental Health Providers of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians, Leading Age Oklahoma, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists – Oklahoma Chapter and The Arc of Oklahoma. Woody Jenkins, a Stillwater doctor and co-chair of the Oklahoma State Medical Association Rural Physicians Section, said, “Oklahoma has been down this road once before, and it was a dismal failure. It’s imperative that Oklahomans understand what is about to happen to Oklahoma’s highest-risk populations.” The reference was to a previous managed care effort that the state health care system abandoned after a short time. Patti Davis, on behalf of the Oklahoma Hospital Association, said, “The Legislature allocates taxpayer dollars, and yet our legislators have not had the opportunity to weigh in on this important decision that impacts their communities.” The most passionate anti-MC speaker at the “holdup” press conference last week was Dr. Twana Duncan, whose Antlers dentistry practice serves several southeast Oklahoma counties. She stated, “Ninety percent of Oklahoma dentists dropped out due to extremely low reimbursement rates imposed by the private insurers. This had a catastrophic effect, particularly on rural Oklahomans and children, as it left less than 100 dentists to treat Medicaid patients. I have no doubt this will happen again unless this effort is stopped.” An Astute Observer’s Viewpoint Kaitlyn Finley, a policy research Fellow at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, is among the most astute observers of this emerging “Clash of the Titans” (as this reporter characterizes it). In an interview last week, Finley said: “The push-and-pull fight between medical providers, insurance companies and government is nothing new. By implementing managed care for Oklahoma’s Medicaid program, it will better align incentives to ensure Medicaid members are receiving superior coordination of care, including preventive care services, as well as safeguarding against unnecessary over-servicing of some procedures and tests. Managed care will provide clearer budget projections for the Legislature, as well. Managed care organizations will be incentivized and held accountable to help achieve better health outcomes.” Although the anti-MC organization asserted in last weeks’ press release that “virtually every aspect of Oklahoma health care” opposes Stitt’s plan, it is clear that the four designated managed care organizations support it – and they have allies. Supporters explain why they advocate Managed Care In a letter to the editor posted at NonDoc.com, an online news service based in Oklahoma City, Jeff Hughes of Progressive Independence wrote in February: “The debate to move Oklahoma to a Medicaid managed care system is complex. It requires all decision makers to focus only on facts in order for the citizens of Oklahoma to be well informed when the Oklahoma Legislature determines where to allocate funds for the approximately 200,000 new Medicaid recipients that will be added to the system this fall because of Medicaid expansion.” He continued, “As the executive director of an Oklahoma non-profit organization that supports Oklahomans with disabilities, I believe a managed care model is the best choice. It is a system proven in other states to improve health outcomes for Medicaid beneficiaries while saving millions of dollars annually.” Hughes added to this argument: “Unfortunately, a recent Government Accountability Office report has been used to further a narrative that managed care and managed care organizations lack oversight and will cause considerable financial strain to the state while not improving health outcomes of the hundreds of thousands of Oklahoma Medicaid recipients. Nothing could be further from the truth. The GAO report looked specifically at managed long-term supports and services programs, which contain the most difficult populations: elderly and disabled Medicaid members. The Oklahoma Health Care Authority is not proposing converting these members to managed care under the current system. The OHCA plans to start managed care with relatively healthy adults and children in order to provide time to effectively manage these populations before enrolling more complex populations.” In his recent comments, Jeff Hughes stressed, “Oklahoma’s success in contract oversight and driving quality improvement will depend on OHCA’s program management. The professionals at OHCA have talked and will continue to talk with other states regarding best and worst practices related to managed care organization contract oversight.” The Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services describes Progressive Independence as “a community-based, cross-disability, non-residential, non-profit agency designed and operated by individuals with disabilities to provide an array of independent living services.” In another missive, managed care supporter Karma Robinson of Oklahomans for Better Medicaid wrote, “Oklahoma has some of the worst health outcomes in the country. Now that the citizens of Oklahoma have spoken on the issue of Medicaid expansion, it is the state’s responsibility to cover the approximately 200,000 additional Oklahomans who will become Medicaid beneficiaries.” Robinson’s group asserts, “Now is the time to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity to improve Oklahoma’s poor national health rankings and outcomes by implementing a new-age managed care model outlined in Sooner Select — a model that will truly provide quality and value to Oklahomans needing them the most. “This is not the managed care model of the 1990s and early 2000s. It is a modern health care system, managed by health care professionals, that has been implemented and proven in dozens of other states. In fact, Oklahoma is one of only a few states not utilizing Medicaid managed care.” Oklahomans for Better Medicaid is described at its website as a “multi-stakeholder group committed” to a system “that improves access, quality, outcomes and affordability through managed care in Oklahoma.” A sketch of the Beginning of the Beginning … Patti Davis, with the anti-MC Hospital Association, complained on March 11 that the Governor left the Legislature out of his deliberations. But also on March 11, the state House of Representatives sent House Resolution 1091 to the Senate. In a March 12 press release, Davis said H.R. 1091 would remove “the ability of OHCA to unilaterally implement managed care.” A legislative press release sketched the provisions of H.R. 1091, which would require that OHCA require of “any proposed or potential plan participating in capitated managed care” these contract provisions: • 90 percent of all claims shall be paid within 14 days of submission to the plan; • Authorizations shall be facilitated within 24 hours for inpatients transferring to post- and long-term acute-care facilities; • All plans shall offer network contracts to all community providers designated as essential by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; • All plans shall offer payment rates to contracted providers that are no lower than the fee schedule of OHCA in effect on the date of service; • All plans shall formally credential and re-credential physicians or other providers at a frequency that may be less than once in three years; • All funds appropriated to OHCA shall be used in accordance with legislative intent; and • Plan reviews and determinations for prior authorization must be timely and in accordance with established guidelines. In response to an inquiry from this reporter, Katelynn Burns, senior media relations professional for OHCA, said, “OHCA is monitoring all legislation related to the agency. As always, we will comply with any legislation passed that affects our agency.” H.R. 1091 cleared the lower chamber with a strong 81-13 vote. It moved to the Senate (where Chris Kidd, R-Waurika, is the sponsor) at the end of deadline week – when the respective chambers must review one another’s proposed new laws. It is what is called, in legislative parlance, “a work in progress.” The strong “yes” vote is not necessarily a sign of the final result. Although it is arguably the most anti-MC proposal in the current Legislature, which is considering a range of health care proposals beyond managed care, the old sports expression is apt: “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.” In a brief interview on St. Patrick’s Day (March 17), state Sen. Kim David, R-Porter, said the upper chamber planned “to take a measured to approach to the bill [HR 1091] from the House. We have several people who will work on that – literally a committee – who will go over the bill carefully. In the Senate, we plan to do what is best for the people of Oklahoma.” Groups opposing any move toward managed care declare it will result in high administrative costs at the four MCOs, but OCPA’s Finley cautions, “Before decrying MCOs’ supposed greater administrative costs as a percentage of total costs compared to the OHCA, one must keep in mind, if total costs go down a larger percentage of a significantly smaller number may still net cost savings. Safeguards are in place in contracts as well as federal law to ensure providers will be held accountable and incentivized to help improve health outcomes for beneficiaries and not skimp on care.” Additionally, Finley succinctly stated one of the strongest arguments for managed care of Medicaid expansion. “Oklahoma’s Medicaid program is growing unchecked,” she said. “Thanks to the passage of Obamacare Medicaid Expansion, [State Question] 802, hundreds of thousands of able-bodied adults will be added to the program. The Oklahoma Health Care Authority needs a way to manage the rising costs of the program.” In the foregoing, an attempt to shed some light, some wind to blow away the smoke and mirrors. And, to be sure, a long-time analyst … stirring the pot. Analyzing and Stirring the Pot: Fight over Managed Care Medicaid Expansion is serious business Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK ![]()
Pat McGuigan
Oklahoma City – In voice votes held last Tuesday (March 16), the Oklahoma House adopted resolutions focused on provisions in the U.S. Constitution. A majority of representatives supported the measures, believing fundamental constitutional values are under siege in contemporary America.
State Rep. Jay Steagall, R-Yukon, was sponsor for two such measures, with several colleagues as co-sponsors.
According to a press release from state House Communications staff, House Resolutions 1009 and 1010 “assert Oklahoma’s state sovereignty in the face of multiple attempts by the federal government to usurp states’ rights.”
Summarizing the intent of the legislative majority, the release identified recent steps in Congress which the Oklahoma resolutions are designed to counteract: “H.R. 1, the ‘For the People Act of 2021’ and H.R. 8, the ‘Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021.’”
Oklahoma’s House Resolution 1010 (as well as 1009) recounts (in the ‘whereas’ catalog that begins the measure), "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." As the approved measure underscores, “the Tenth Amendment limits the scope of federal power.”
H.R. 1010 goes on to stress that “the Second Amendment is a limitation placed on the federal government,” with the explicit provision: "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
In the framework established in the state resolution, the author noted that the state Constitution provides “the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma provides: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited."
Rep. Steagall’s companion measure, House Resolution 1009 affirms that the Oklahoma House “recognizes Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States,” which provides that "The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."
Additionally, in the “whereas” provisions, the Steagall measure notes that “Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States is wholly silent on the matters of voter registration and congressional redistricting.”
The pair of resolutions also sketches the reasoning many legislators in Oklahoma and in other states are advancing in opposition to the pair of Congressional enactments, which Steagall and others believe would transform (to the negative) the American system of federalism.
Steagall’s proposals do not require action in the state Senate, and included direction that
“suitable copies” of the resolutions “be delivered to the President of the United States, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and each member of the congressional delegation of Oklahoma.”
A third state measure, House Concurrent Resolution 1002, also moved through the Oklahoma House and will be considered in the state Senate.
This resolution, approved on March 16, notes that “the production of beef, pork, and poultry in Oklahoma contributes $18 billion annually to the state's economy.”
In the ‘whereas’ catalog the measure points out that “animal agriculture and the direct care of livestock is a meaningful way of life to more than 110,000 Oklahomans.”
After listing a range of nutritional and other benefits, the resolution – from Republican authors Dell Kerbs of Shawnee, Max Wolfley of Oklahoma City and Sean Roberts of Hominy – concludes: “[T]he Oklahoma Legislature encourages Oklahomans to consume and enjoy meat and poultry for the week beginning March 22, 2021, and as often as they desire.”
The proposal now advances to the upper chamber of the Legislature, where state Senator Casey Murdock, R-Felt, is the author.
Note: Founder of CapitolBeatOK.com, Patrick B. McGuigan of Oklahoma City is also publisher of an independent and locally-owned newspaper, The City Sentinel newspaper. A member of the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame, McGuigan is the author of three books and editor of seven books.
From One House to Another: Oklahoma House of Representatives affirms federal constitutional framework, key founding principles Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK ![]()
State Rep. Mauree Turner, D-Oklahoma City
From Oklahoma House, Communications & Public Affairs
House resolutions are seen by our constituents as value statements. As policymakers, we should take them just as seriously as the laws we write. They signal to the people what we care about, especially in a time when the everyday needs of Oklahoma have been magnified. Resolutions are ways we show the people what laws might come from us in the future.
Today [Tuesday, March 16] , we spent time declaring our sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. Of course, state sovereignty has been recognized by the courts since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.
The motive of these bills, however, didn’t seem to be adherence to the Constitution so much as an attempt to score political points by attacking legislation coming out of the U.S. House of Representatives.
What legislation did Congress pass that we found so egregious? The expansion of voting rights and background checks to purchase a firearm.
We must do better for our constituents. Government can no longer be focused on the pomp and circumstance of politics. We need real Oklahoma Focused solutions for the problems our constituents face every day.
Note: Mauree Turner is a first-term Democrat from Oklahoma’s state House District 88. This statement was sent to The City Sentinel, CapitolBeatOK.com and other news organizations on Tuesday, March 16.
Resolutions are Value Statements Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK Oklahoma Child Advocacy groups Heroes Ball wins National award for Best Virtual Presentation3/20/2021 ![]()
OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy (OICA) is the winner of a national award for Virtual Presentations for its 2020 Heroes Ball, OICA’s annual awards and fundraising banquet.
The COVID-19 pandemic canceled countless events during 2020, including many nonprofit organizations’ fundraising events. As these cancellations reached epidemic proportions, OICA’s Board of Directors and staff realized their own annual event – the Heroes Ball – was at risk.
The Heroes Ball normally hosts about 400 child advocates, state leaders, and award honorees in a traditional banquet hall. Proceeds from the event comprise almost one-quarter of OICA’s annual budget for child advocacy.
The challenge was to find a way to properly honor the state’s outstanding child advocates and generate the revenue from the event on which the organization depends.
“Had we been forced to cancel the Heroes Ball, not only would our advocacy efforts be put at risk, OICA’s entire existence would have become uncertain,” said Joe Dorman, OICA chief executive officer. “The show, as they say, had to go on, even if it had to go on in a different way than we had ever done it before.”
Going Virtual
The decision was made to make the event virtual, in essence, an online awards show and presentation. As the event was slated for July 31, it was among the first such award presentations to adopt the virtual format.
“We were breaking new ground,” said Mitchell Rozin, OICA’s 2020 Board President. “Not only were we designing a new way to honor our state’s outstanding child advocates, but we had to do it on an extraordinarily compressed schedule. We had to pivot from planning our traditional in-person event to thinking outside the box on how to present the event virtually and doing it all on the fly.”
The event was broadcast on Zoom from the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum (which was the planned site for the original, live event) -- using their in-house Audio/Visual crew with pre-recorded speeches and spliced in live with hosts and an auction.
In addition, the organization provided banquet meals through a sponsorship from Postmates to do $25 gift cards to attendees who chose a meal option.
[To read CapitolBeatOK’s 2020 story on the OICA Heroes Ball, go here:
(https://ift.tt/3lCyWGr]
Not only did the Heroes Ball maintain all their previous sponsors from the 2019 event, the revenue and ticket sales exceeded the past year’s totals.
National recognition comes to OICA’s 2020 ‘Heroes Ball’
The effort did not escape national notice.
Lawrence Ragan Communications, Inc. is a leader in training for professionals in corporate communications, public relations, social media, and management. Ragan also sponsors a series of public relations awards, including its Video, Visual & Virtual Awards, or “V3.”
In the category of “Virtual Presentation,” OICA’s Virtual Heroes Ball won Ragan’s V3 award for Best Virtual Presentation.
OICA joins a host of winners in other categories that include national brands such as Microsoft, IT provider Citrix, Johns Manville, University of California Davis Health, and The Kroger Co. grocery chain.
Organizations receiving honorable mention in OICA’s category include ReSource Pro for its U.S. team meeting; ServiceNow, a Silicon Valley IT workflow company that was a winner in several other categories; and Superior Essex, a communications technology company.
“We are very proud of our staff and their hard work in making the 2020 Virtual Heroes Ball such a great success,” said Bruce Schultz, 2021 OICA Board President.
“Not only are they charged with executing an aggressive advocacy plan, but we also ask them to develop the program to fund the efforts. This award is evidence of the team’s dedication to Oklahoma’s children, and the entire Board of Directors is proud of their work.”
Dorman noted the event was a team effort, which was recognized by Ragan’s “V3” award committee. The award presentation extended congratulations to Dorman; Peyton Stacy, OICA Director of Policy & Grant Administration; Jay Gumm, OICA Director of Communications and Public Relations; Miranda Hines, OICA Program Director; and Fundraising Consultant Sarah Baker; and previous staff and interns who were on the team at the time of this event.
“We have a great team in place,” Dorman concluded. “These are the right people to continue fighting for Oklahoma’s children, and I am proud of each of them and the tremendous work they do.”
About OICA: The Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy was established in 1983 by a group of citizens seeking to create a strong advocacy network that would provide a voice for the needs of children and youth in Oklahoma, particularly those in the state’s care and those growing up amid poverty, violence, abuse and neglect, disparities, or other situations that put their lives and future at risk. Our mission statement: “Creating awareness, taking action and changing policy to improve the health, safety, and well-being of Oklahoma’s children.”
Oklahoma Child Advocacy group’s Heroes Ball wins National award for ‘Best Virtual Presentation’ Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK ![]()
Steve Fair
On March 11, President Joe Biden signed a $1.9 trillion dollar relief package. It sends direct payments of up to $1,400 to citizens and extends a $300 per week unemployment supplement.
“This historic legislation is about rebuilding the backbone of this country,’ Biden said as he signed the bill. All Republicans in both chambers voted against the bill with just one Democrat (Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine) voting no.
That night President Biden spoke to the country and opened his remarks by criticizing President Donald Trump saying his predecessor was “in denial for days, week, then months that led to more deaths, more infections, more stress and more loneliness.” Biden said all Americans would be eligible for vaccine inoculation by May 1 and the country could start to get back to some sort of normal by July 4.
Three observations:
First, Biden’s disparaging remarks about Trump were inappropriate and untrue.
Trump wasn’t in denial about COVID. He shut down travel from China and other countries weeks before other world leaders did to slow down the spread. He initiated Operation Warp Speed to facilitate development of a vaccine, which was accomplished in record time.
Andy Slavitt, a senior adviser to the White House's COVID team, credited Warp Speed for spurring the development of a vaccine at an unprecedented pace. “We’re grateful for the work that came before us and are doing the best we can to continue it and accelerate it,” Slavitt said on Fox News. “I would absolutely tip my hat. … The Trump administration made sure that we got in record time a vaccine up and out. That’s a great thing and it's something we should all be excited about.”
Perhaps Biden should listen to his own advisors and stop politicizing COVID. He is benefiting from Trump’s work.
Second, the COVID relief bill includes spending unrelated to COVID.
$350 billion of the total relief bill spending is divided between the 50 states to fill budget holes. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 15 percent of the total goes to pet projects for Democrats, which include a $1.5 million bridge connecting New York and Canada, a $100 million underground rail project in Silicon Valley, $480 million for Native American language preservation and maintenance and $50 million in environmental justice grants.
Congressman Tom Cole, R-Moore, says less than 10 percent of the total goes to actually COVID relief.
“While Democrats’ fake coronavirus rescue package had a very few egregious provisions removed during its trip over to the U.S. Senate, the final version headed to the president’s desk remains deeply partisan and extremely liberal. In fact, even socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has called it the most progressive legislation he has ever voted for or seen passed in his congressional career …. Those are telling descriptions of what this legislation is actually meant to achieve, and that is not delivery of coronavirus relief,” Cole said.
Third, the ‘relief’ will be paid for by future generations.
In the past year, Congress has passed six bills and spent $4 trillion dollars dealing with COVID. The first five passed with bi-partisan support, but Republicans rightly balked at this one because of the pork the Democrats crammed in it. Spending money we don’t have on pet projects is irresponsible and puts a fiscal burden on future taxpayers.
In his 24-minute speech, President Biden mentioned the ‘collective suffering’ of Americans over the past year.
Clearly 2020 was a challenge but if the federal government doesn’t become fiscally responsible, that collective suffering will be for generations.
Note: Steve Fair is chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party in the Fourth Congressional District. His commentaries appear in many newspapers and at online news organizations, including CapitolBeatOK.com. Steve’s email is [email protected]; his blog is stevefair.blogspot.com.
Collective Suffering: A Commentary Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK ![]()
Greg Forster, Ph.D.
How would you like to stop thousands of vulnerable kids from becoming criminals?
And do it by enacting a policy that’s proven to work, and has consistent 65 percent to 70 percent public support, bringing together Americans of all colors and creeds? The best criminal-justice reform is to prevent kids from getting on the wrong side of the law in the first place, and the way to do that is hiding in plain sight: school choice.
“Criminal justice reform” is a phrase that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Like the overwhelming majority of Americans, I’m strongly in favor of the right kind of criminal justice reform, and strongly against the wrong kind.
The sticking point is that Americans mostly don’t agree on which reform policies are the right ones.
In a highly polarized country, political movements have to make a choice.
The organizations that want to raise a lot of money without accomplishing anything will focus on inflaming divisions, keeping us stuck in endless 50/50 trench warfare so we’ll keep sending them checks to carry on the fight.
The organizations that want to get something done will look for policy opportunities that allow them to bring 65 percent or 75 percent of the country together around doing the right thing.
It’s not hard to find the fundraisers in criminal justice reform. On the left, they’re the ones who shout “defund the police!” On the right, they’re the ones who shout “when looting starts, shooting starts!”
And both sides then evade responsibility by claiming that they don’t literally mean what they say — a double game that allows them to raise money by appealing to base, vicious sentiments and then wash their hands of the consequences.
But there are criminal-justice reform policies that attract broad consensus. And there are plenty more that could attract broad consensus with the right kind of campaign. My personal favorites are ending the flagrantly unjust judge-made rule called qualified immunity, which makes it effectively impossible to punish police officers who break the law, and ending the legalized theft that is civil asset forfeiture.
I also think body cameras for police, in spite of the downsides, are worth it. And I’d like to see states clean up their public reporting of justice-related data, which generally are as clear as mud. Better pay for officers should also be on the table — if we want better policing, we should put our money where our mouths are.
These policies take seriously the fact that we give police a lot of power, and power does tend to corrupt. Everyone needs to do their work within some kind of effective accountability structure. But these approaches also empower the majority of police who are clean to do their jobs better.
Unfortunately, clearing a path to most of the really constructive reforms will require us to rein in the power of police unions. It can be done, if we have the will, and it should be done — government employees shouldn’t be unionized in the first place, since there’s no market discipline to counterbalance the unions’ unlimited pursuit of their own selfish interests, and it’s especially wrong for them to unionize against public safety. But there’s no denying that it would be a tough fight, which is why so far we generally haven’t bothered to try it.
The good news is that there’s a criminal-justice reform we can enact without having to fight the police unions: expand school choice.
Better academic outcomes are not the only proven benefit from policies that allow parents to direct their children’s educational funding to the school of their choice.
Six rigorous empirical studies have found that school choice policies reduce crime, and no studies find the opposite.
Some of them study charter schools, which don’t empower parents as much as private-school choice does, but the principle is the same. Two studies of the private-school voucher program in Milwaukee, not far from where I live, found that graduates of the program were less likely to be convicted of crimes in their twenties. And don’t say that’s because the program attracts the less vulnerable students — in Milwaukee, as in most cities, school choice serves mostly poor and minority students.
In any event, the studies compared matched student populations with similar backgrounds.
It’s not hard to see why school choice is proven to reduce crime. Putting parents back in charge of education is the key to educating children as if they were human beings, not economic widgets or political footballs. Education is preparing a whole person for a whole life — that’s just what the word means. Only parents can rightly control the process of preparing a whole person for a whole life, because child-rearing is a parental function. Schools can carry out that function, but they can only do it rightly if they answer to the people who are supposed to be in charge of it.
When parents aren’t in charge, schools can’t treat students as human beings. The monopoly system turns schools into industrialized machines. That’s not because the teachers and principals are bad. It’s just the way the system has to work as long as it’s a government monopoly, no matter how well-meaning the people inside that system might be.
Other reforms seeking to help kids in failing schools always founder on the rocky shoals of the government school monopoly’s resistance to reform.
All monopolies resist reform. They’re monopolies, that’s what monopolies do.
Break the monopoly, and schools suddenly remember that they exist to serve students, not politicians and special interests.
Unlike police unions, the unions representing education special interests have been losing power for a decade. That’s partly because they’ve lost a long series of public relations battles — everyone now knows that they don’t speak for education, and they don’t even speak for their own members.
They just want to grab money, and they don’t care about destroying children’s lives to do it. And it’s partly because they’ve lost a long series of public policy battles, with private school choice and new restrictions on unjust union exploitation of their own members having been enacted in most states.
We now have private-school choice programs in 30 states — a supermajority.
We hear a lot about the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Well, school choice is literally the only policy with a proven track record of doing something about that problem. It’s time to put up or shut up.
NOTE: Greg Forster (Ph.D., Yale University) is a Friedman Fellow with EdChoice. He has conducted numerous empirical studies on education issues, including school choice, accountability testing, graduation rates, student demographics, and special education. His essay from Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs [https://ift.tt/3vJcaRZ] is reposted here, with permission. The author of nine books and the co-editor of six books, Dr. Forster has also written numerous articles in peer-reviewed academic journals, as well as in popular publications such as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. His latest book is Economics: A Student’s Guide (Crossway, 2019).
School choice: The best criminal justice reform Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK ![]()
OKLAHOMA CITY – State Rep. Forrest Bennett recently joined the Oklahoma Legislature’s Sportsmen Caucus as a House co-chairman.
The goals of the Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus are to cultivate bipartisan relationships while working to protect and promote outdoor activities from hiking to hunting. The caucus goals are as much about conservation as they are about supporting local economies.
“There are small towns across the state that rely on seasonal outdoor activities like fishing or boating,” Bennett, an Oklahoma City Democrat, said. “I look forward to finding ways to promote these activities and the communities they support.”
Bennett was nominated by fellow caucus co-chairman, Rep. Kevin Wallace. They hope to work together to foster better bipartisanship, while also focusing on ways to support the goals of the caucus.
“I’m grateful to Chairman Wallace for asking me to join as co-chair,” Bennett said. “I look forward to building stronger relationships through caucus activities outside of the Capitol, and I’m optimistic that it will lead to more and better bipartisan solutions.”
State Rep. Forrest Bennett of Oklahoma City joins Sportsmen’s Caucus as co-chair Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK Starting to get down in the weeds Spring Allergies but rays of sunshine for Managed Care advocates?3/14/2021 ![]() Pat McGuigan, special to the Southwest Ledger
OKLAHOMA CITY – High winds and the Sooner State’s well-known springtime assault of windborne allergies are on the minds of many Oklahomans, including health care providers, analysts, legislators and medical professionals.
Like spring itself, even as undeniable signs of hope emerge about the course of the worldwide 2019-2021 Pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), daily work with irritated eyes and congested systems might drive some to distraction on anything other than immediate essentials of occupational labor.
But in and around the State Capitol, it’s hard to miss another sign of the times.
The Oklahoma Health Care Authority, with Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt’s concurrence, set the table for a major argument in late winter with the announcement that four providers would be tapped to administer the state Medicaid program, beginning this fall.
Winners (or losers, depending on an analyst’s perspective) of the first round in what will likely be a long fight were UnitedHealthcare, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Humana Healthy Horizons and Oklahoma Complete Health.
The quartet could assume management of Medicaid (including voter-approved expansion) on October 1.
The idea has determined critics. Emma Morris of the Oklahoma Policy Institute said, in a March 4 blog post, that “The Oklahoma Legislature is now the only entity that can protect the management of Oklahoma’s historically efficient, nationally recognized SoonerCare program from being hastily outsourced to private companies.”
The most notable counter to the HCFA/Stitt effort came from the powerful Oklahoma State Medical Association (OSMA). The association decried “outsourcing” of Medicaid and began maneuvering for what could be one of the most significant “Clash of the Titans” battle at the state Supreme Court in modern history.
Ray Carter of the Center for Independent Journalism, analyzed the early maneuvering of the OSMA and allies such as the Oklahoma Health Association (OHA) in a February 17 news story. He pointed out that “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.”
Carter further reported that while roughly three dozen state legislators have critiqued the selection of the quartet of providers, “none have offered an alternative means of cost control.” Stitt and the OHCA insist that oversight of patients in the Medicaid system would assure not only cost efficiencies but better patient outcomes.
As both Carter and this reporter have chronicled for years, other than public education, the state’s tax-financed health care systems are the major cost-drivers for government. From Carter’s reporting:
“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.”
A new peer-review study touted summarized strong results in combating COVID deaths for a sample of nearly 39,000 Floridians in a Managed Care program.
The analysis from the American Journal of Managed Care found, according to a press release, that Cano Health’s “population health management program reduced COVID-19 mortality by 60 percent, compared to a mirror group of Florida patients.”
The “retrospective cohort study” included 38,193 MCPs (Managed Care Patients) in the Sunshine State who were monitored, the AJMC report said, “for COVID-19 incidence, hospitalization, and mortality.”
That cohort was “compared with a mirror group from the state of Florida.”
The abstract summary of reported results is striking: “The mean (SD) age among the MCPs was 67.9 (15.2) years, and 60 [percent] were female. Older age and hypertension were the most important factors in predicting COVID-19. Obesity, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and congestive heart failure (CHF) were linked to higher rates of hospitalizations. Patients prescribed off-label outpatient medications had 73 [percent] lower likelihood of hospitalization (P<.05). Compared with the mirror group, MCPs had 60 [percent]lower COVID-19 mortality (P<.05).”
Cano offered up its press release (with the study linked) on March 4.
The stage is set for an argument that seems never-ending. But the first stage resolution of the current debate will be resolved, one way or another, in time for Medicaid expansion (which passed with the narrowest margin of any constitutional referendum in state history).
Medicaid expansion was a close call in Oklahoma. It’s unlikely management of that expansion will be a slam dunk.
Note: This analysis first appeared in the Southwest Ledger, March 11, 2021 print edition and online: https://www.southwestledger.news/ Southwest Ledger, 7602 US Highway 277, Elgin, OK 73538, (580) 350-1111. It is reposted here with permission.
Starting to get down in the weeds – Spring Allergies, but rays of sunshine for Managed Care advocates? 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 |