We like to see all of the arguments for and against privatized managed care for Medicaid in Oklahoma.
We’ve seen plenty against managed care, which suggests it would lead to rationing care, larger overhead and worse patient outcomes.
Gov. Kevin Stitt’s main argument for managed care is that Oklahoma currently ranks low and this would make us better.
We don’t get a lot of the “how” it’s supposed to be better.
In a December op/ed Stanley Hupfeld, former President and CEO of Integris Hospital and chair of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority Board wrote:
“These entities will accept a negotiated fixed premium at the beginning of the care cycle. In exchange they will deliver all the care the recipient requires. If they can do this and keep the population healthy, they will profit. If they cannot, they will suffer a loss. The concept is to focus on being proactive in indemnifying that recipients stay healthy and reduce the requirement to use the most expensive parts of the health care system.”
So, the idea is that the insurance company is “on the hook” for care even if it gets really expensive to treat a patient.
One more time:
“In exchange they will deliver all the care the recipient requires.”
When has that ever been the case for health insurance, private or otherwise?
We’ve also seen the argument, and it’s usually a fair point, “well of course pharmacists and health unions are against privatized care because it affects their bottom line.”
But, sure, let’s think about it from strictly who stands to make money.
Would you rather have your local pharmacy and hospital be financially well off, or would you rather that money pad the pockets of out-of-state insurance companies?
Why is this a discussion?
Why not see what expanded Medicaid does for the state first before fiddling with it?
How might that change our rankings?
Oklahomans aren’t poker chips, so let’s not gamble with our health.
[Stillwater News Press]