The repeal of Obamacare didn’t work, and it’s understandable to want to try a different sort of fix for a health insurance system marked by skyrocketing costs. However, state-authorized expansion of short-term insurance plans is most certainly not the right way to do it.

An Executive Order signed by President Donald Trump last October will let states grant greater use of what is known as short-term limited duration insurance (STLDI). While giving power over these types of policy decisions back to the states is to be applauded, state leaders should be very careful before they let more people sign up for longer stints on short-term plans.

Doing so could pull healthy people from the government Health Insurance Marketplace – where those so-called Obamacare plans are sold – which will, in turn, drive up premiums for those who are left. Once premiums get high enough and constituents get angry enough, the political will might be found to finally repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, but in the meantime, we will all pay a steep price.

We will pay in higher health insurance premiums. States themselves will pay in higher health care costs. The federal government will pay in higher subsidies. And then we will pay (again) in higher taxes to cover growing government expenses.

Read the complete story on townhall.com

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush worked in a bipartisan fashion to craft protections for rural hospitals, like the ones that dot the Oklahoma landscape. A very significant part of the 1992 law is section 340B.

The name “340B” tells nothing of the program’s advantages or even what this section of the law covers. Section 340B provides protection for rural and other safety net hospitals. In exchange for the ability to sell medication to the cash cow Medicare and Medicaid programs pharmaceutical companies would provide these hospitals with discounted medications, granting them the ability to stretch their limited resources. Patients with insurance or the ability to pay for medication do so at standard rates negotiated by their provider. The plan with the pharmaceutical companies was to trade a slight decline in profit margins for a huge gain in market share.

This program has been in effect for more than 25 years and many rural hospitals, running on razor-thin margins are able to keep their doors open because of 340B, providing services that might not otherwise be available to predominantly underserved communities, low-income seniors and Medicaid patients.

But now big Pharma is pushing Congress to revoke 340B, claiming losses on the program and unaccountable hospitals. Only one-third of U.S. hospitals participate in the 340B program, many in rural areas. While pharmaceutical companies are complaining about losses, in 2015 only $12 billion worth of drugs, or 3 percent of total pharmaceutical sales were purchased under the 340B program. Annual pharmaceutical sales overall for 2015 were $425 billion, of which Medicaid accounted for $57.3 billion and Medicare (Part D&B) spent $162 billion.

By revoking 340B these same pharmaceutical companies that have been fined billions of dollars for overcharging the government will yank the rug out from under the most vulnerable in the areas that need care the most. And yet these same pharmaceutical companies claiming big losses on discounted drugs charge $84,000 in the United States for hepatitis C treatment and provide the same treatment in India for a mere $900.

Rising healthcare and medical costs should be the key focus on why 340B should remain in place. 340B allows rural hospitals to stay open without government subsidies. Closing many of these rural hospitals would restrict access to care in these areas, potentially shifting the responsibility to cover the $25 billion in uncompensated care 340B safety-net hospitals provide to taxpayers’ expense.

The closure of our rural and safety-net hospitals isn’t the only possible cost of losing 340B. Some rural providers have used funds from the 340B program to create programs providing free transportation to receive care.  If these programs were to end due to budgetary restrictions, transporting low-income patients to these facilities would then likely fall to the government (ultimately the tax payer) Lowering medication costs through 340B for needy patients also reduces the burden on government-funded Medicaid programs. By having greater access to discounted preventative drugs it prevents more expensive catastrophic hospital visits from occurring.

A 2016 report by the Natural Rural Health Association reported that a third of rural hospitals – about 700 – are at risk of closing. Oklahoma cannot afford to lose its rural hospitals. In Markwayne Mullin’s Congressional district alone, two rural hospitals have been forced to close, now requiring travel of more than 30 miles for emergency treatment. If costs continue to rise another 41 rural Oklahoma hospitals could face closure. Our neighbors to the south of us, Texas, currently have 27 counties with zero licensed physicians. Combine the loss of patient care with the jobs impact that hospital closures would create – rural hospitals are often one of the largest employers of the communities they serve – and we are faced with a recipe for the decline of healthcare in rural Oklahoma.

No bill has been presented as yet, however Congress has held Committee hearings regarding 340B. Should big Pharma get their way and persuade Republican legislators to revoke 340B, it will be at their own peril. Rural voters were key to Donald Trump’s victory last November. Instead of revoking a program that keeps Oklahoma hospitals alive, perhaps Congress should fulfill their promise and repeal Obamacare, a big contributor to the rising cost of healthcare. Repealing 340B will only make rural access to healthcare a crisis of its own, and enrich fat cat pharmaceutical companies.

Ronda Vuillemont-Smith is President of the Tulsa 912 Project.

Fmr. Gov. Keating: Medicaid’s huge expansion under Obamacare ‘the 900 pound gorilla’ in the room from CNBC.

Rolling back ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion has become the focal point of the health-care debate, and rightly so. Without fundamental change, Medicaid—expanded or not—will push state budgets to the brink even as it fails to help the most financially vulnerable Americans.

Consider Oklahoma, our home state. Despite intense lobbying by hospital corporations, the state Legislature stood strong and refused the Medicaid expansion. But the Medicaid rolls increased anyway, and at a dramatic cost to priorities like education, public safety and transportation.

Like most states, Oklahoma used to spend most of its funds on education. But a few years ago Medicaid’s rapidly rising costs pushed it to the top of the budget. Today, Oklahoma spends $5.1 billion a year on Medicaid, more than the $3.4 billion a year for K-12 schools and $942 million a year for higher education combined. Medicaid is now crowding out other state priorities, with real consequences in education and beyond: lower teacher pay, fewer textbooks, deferred road maintenance, fewer mental-health treatment options in the state justice system to prevent incarceration of nonviolent offenders, and—within the Medicaid program itself—lower reimbursement rates for doctors.

Something has to give. If policy makers want to preserve a functioning and reliable safety net for low-income citizens with serious health challenges, they must face the fact that Medicaid is failing.

Read the complete story on wsj.com

One thing upon which most Oklahomans agree is that former President Obama’s signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, has been disastrous for most Oklahoma consumers. The regulatory framework of the ACA has led to higher prices and fewer choices for insurance consumers. While Congress works to craft an alternative, there is no doubt this law needs to be repealed.

Repealing the ACA, however, is not the panacea. It must be repealed and replaced in a way that provides stability for consumers and the industry, else Republicans and the Trump administration risk a failed response becoming their signature. I am pleased our Republicans in Washington have introduced legislation and are working through the process.

While “watching the sausage be made” is not always pleasant, this process is far superior to when Obamacare was originally passed, as now we have been given a chance to read it. Yes, there are hiccups along the way (such as pulling the vote in the U.S. House last week), but we must support a process that leads to an outcome that benefits consumers. Nobody ever thought the original bill would be the final piece of legislation, but we have to get the ball moving.

It’s time to act on at least some aspects of the ACA. For example, Congress needs to keep the Health Insurance Tax from going into effect. Congress delayed its implementation last year, and needs to make certain it doesn’t reach into the pockets of Oklahomans before a replacement for the ACA is enacted. We need Congress to act to make certain this issue does not get lost in the flurry of activity happening in Washington, D.C.

There is no one-size-fits-all insurance plan. Different families, individuals and even states have different needs. As Congress looks to create more stability in the insurance markets, I ask them to look at giving states more flexibility and let states be the innovators. While Congress needs to permit the sale of insurance across state lines, insurance needs to remain under state regulatory enforcement. States should be able to enact health reforms related to physical fitness and nutrition programs at the grade-school level and states should be able to innovate in health care delivery mechanisms such as telemedicine, and others, to benefit their state’s particular needs.

The best way to keep health care and health insurance costs from spiraling is to reject the creeping sentiment that health insurance is an entitlement rather than an insurance product. We must return to a free market, grounded in fair and limited regulatory oversight, which is predicated on constitutional freedoms and rights. This structure presents the best possibility of delivering sustainable access and affordability in the marketplace going forward.

I look forward to Oklahoma’s federal delegation helping replace the ACA by creating marketplace stabilization, allowing states to innovate, and ultimately allowing more Oklahomans to afford and tailor insurance coverage to fit their needs.

Mulready, R-Tulsa, represents District 68 in the Oklahoma House.

Read the complete story on NewsOK.com

Posted by on March 22, 2017

The vote on the American Healthcare Act is a very tough decision. As the Representative of the First District of Oklahoma, my philosophy has been to fight for the most conservative option possible, and I often vote “No” to get to a “better Yes”. Today, I decided the American Healthcare Act is the best “Yes” that the House is able to accomplish legislatively at this time. Conservatives worked very hard to improve this bill, and while we hoped for a better bill, this is a dramatic improvement over Obamacare.

Obamacare is collapsing on itself with massive increases in premiums and deductibles so high that some families are effectively uninsured. Many states have lost health insurance providers where companies cannot afford to offer Obamacare-compliant policies. A third of all counties, including every county in Oklahoma, have only one provider on the exchanges this year and another third have only two. Seven years ago, Obamacare took over nearly 20 percent of the U.S. economy, and unwinding that tangled system is extremely complex.

This bill effectively repeals the individual and employer mandates, cuts $1 trillion in taxes, and reduces the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars over ten years. The bill fundamentally transforms Medicaid from an open-ended and unsustainable entitlement to a State-centered system which caps the Federal contribution and maximizes flexibility for the States. The Medicaid reforms alone will save trillions over the long-term, help move millions of people onto private insurance, and preserve the safety net for the most vulnerable.

Most important to me, this bill prohibits funds from going to the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, and redirects federal funding to Community Health Centers. This provision alone merits support even though the bill falls short of what conservatives wanted to accomplish.

I am disappointed that this legislation did not include provisions to repeal the Obamacare health insurance regulations which are the root cause of skyrocketing premiums and employers dropping coverage. Fortunately, Tom Price, Secretary of Health and Human Services, will exercise his authority under the law to remove costly Obamacare regulations. I also have great reservations about the bill’s refundable tax credit scheme, which is essentially a different version of the Obamacare subsidy program.

In my judgment though, this is the opening legislative salvo of the Trump Presidency, and we cannot let it fail when we do not have a shot at a better option. Therefore, I will vote “Yes”.

When open enrollment in Obamacare starts next month, enrollees in four states will be able to choose plans from only one insurer.

Alaska, Alabama, Wyoming and Oklahoma have confirmed to theWashington Examiner that they will have only one insurer offering Obamacare plans for 2017. The revelation comes in the wake of defections from some major insurers that have left Obamacare exchanges due to financial losses.

A lack of competition could mean no driving force to offer lower prices to consumers. Some states have approved rate increases of up to 50 percent. A recent independent estimate on the site acasignups.net predicted that 25 states have approved average price hikes of nearly 25 percent.

Read the complete story on washingtonexaminer.com

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) – A bill to expand Medicaid eligibility in Oklahoma so that the state could tap into an infusion of federal funding available under the Affordable Care Act appears to be dead, the state’s Senate leader said on Monday.

With just one week remaining before lawmakers are set to adjourn, Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman said there isn’t enough support in the Republican-controlled Senate to approve the plan. A proposed $1.50-per-pack tax increase on cigarettes to help pay for the state’s share was defeated in the Oklahoma House last week, and Bingman said that proposal is also likely dead for the year.

“I think part of the (plan) is the expansion of Obamacare, and I think the Senate has been pretty clear for the last six years that we don’t want to expand that portion … because Oklahoma can’t afford it,” said Bingman, R-Sapulpa.

The plan called for expanding Medicaid eligibility to about 170,000 uninsured low-income Oklahomans and shifting about an equal number of currently Medicaid-eligible pregnant women and children onto the private market. Because of Republicans’ bitter resistance to the federal health care law, the plan was dubbed a “rebalancing” instead of an expansion since the overall number of people on Medicaid was projected to stay the same.

Read the complete story from the AP. 

Yesterday, House Democrat leader Scott Inman stated clearly and plainly that his caucus would be willing to vote for a 145% tax increase on thousands of Oklahomans, as long as Republicans would agree to pass Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Thankfully, many Republican legislators have stated they will not accept that offer because they know the Obamacare expansion will burden Oklahoma taxpayers excessively, as it has in other states where it’s been tried.

There are clearly better options available for stabilizing Medicaid provider rates, as well as providing a $5,000 across-the-board salary increase for Oklahoma classroom teachers, without raising taxes on Oklahoma families. At a time when more than 20,000 Oklahomans have lost their jobs because of falling oil prices, raising taxes is not the answer. There’s a better path for state lawmakers and for our state as a whole.

For example, it’s unconscionable that Oklahoma taxpayers are being asked to pay more in taxes while the state of Oklahoma continues to be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars to out-of-state and foreign wind companies that are getting billions from the feds already.

Lawmakers should consider, in a time when many Oklahoma families are being forced to tighten their belts, whether it’s of higher priority to continue subsidies for wind energy generation, or to give teachers a pay raise and stabilize Medicaid provider rates.

Below is a list of recommendations on how to stabilize Oklahoma’s health care without expanding Medicaid:

• Decouple and adjust the various provider rates based on need, so that critical services like nursing home care, rural primary care, rural hospital care, and other critical services with limited revenue streams can be prioritized for funding. Given that it would take just $10 million to protect nursing homes from harmful cuts, thorough analysis reveals affordable state-based solutions can be effective.
• Implement the Medicaid reform pilot program which was passed by the legislature in 2015 and which special interests tried to repeal during the 2016 legislative session. Potential state savings estimated over $400 million.
• Restructure OHCA into a cabinet-level agency with the CEO and Medicaid director appointed by the governor and reorganize the OHCA board into an advisory board. This will allow operational decisions to be made unclouded by the pressure special interests currently wield on OHCA and will improve the overall effectiveness of the agency, just as lawmakers improved the Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
• Utilize 21st-century tools to protect program integrity and ensure only those actually eligible are enrolled in the program. Illinois saved an estimated $350 million per year by implementing such a program.
• Oklahoma’s Medicaid program could save an estimated $20 million per year by implementing a similar program.
• Encourage local communities to increase local support and local financing for health providers that are struggling.
• Extend Medicaid reform efforts to other populations currently enrolled in Medicaid. Further coordination of care, greater use of health plans to better manage care, and increased use of capitation could save more than $80 million, based on other states’ experiences.

By seeking to raise taxes and expand Medicaid, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) and Sooner State lawmakers are pushing to make their state an outlier in a region full of states reducing tax rates, rejecting Obamacare, and exercising spending restraint. Gov. Fallin began the 2016 legislative session violating the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a written commitment she made to Oklahoma taxpayers to “oppose and veto any and all efforts to raise taxes,” by calling for hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes to address a $1.3 billion budget shortfall caused by low oil prices and years of overspending.

Gov. Fallin is calling for a cigarette tax increase of $1.50 per pack, a 146% rate increase that would make cigarettes sold in Oklahoma among the most heavily-taxed in the nation. Cigarette taxes are regressive, hitting low-income consumers the hardest, and are a volatile source of revenue. Increasing the state’s reliance on tobacco taxes will only make budgeting more difficult. In fact, according to industry data, only three of the 32 state tobacco tax increases that went into effect between 2009 and 2013 met or exceeded revenue projections. It is for this reason that tobacco tax hikes often serve as placeholders for future tax increases on the broader populace.

Another proposal to raise taxes being debated in Oklahoma is an expansion of the sales tax base to include more products and services. Generally, this can be the basis for pro-growth tax reform at the state level when paired with broad base rate cuts. However, that is not what is being proposed here. Oklahoma already imposes the sixth highest average state and local sales tax in the nation at 8.77%.

Given Oklahoma’s precarious fiscal situation, one might think greatly expanding state taxpayer liabilities by voluntarily expanding Medicaid under Obamacare would be unwise, but that’s exactly what Gov. Fallin and state legislators are considering this week. The Oklahoma Health Care Authority’s “rebalancing plan,” which former Senator Tom Coburn recently referred to as “simply Obamacare Medicaid expansion rebranded,” would actually kick 175,000 women and children off of Medicaid to open eligibility to as many as 628,000 of able-bodied adults, according to a report published by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs and the Foundation for Government Accountability.

Read the complete story on forbes.com

The Oklahoma Health Care Authority’s Medicaid “rebalancing” plan is being considered by lawmakers. The plan is simply Obamacare Medicaid expansion rebranded. As conservatives concerned about fiscal responsibility, we urge lawmakers to reject it.

The rebalancing scheme is a policy that expands the scope and size of the federal government and increases dependency on government programs. It removes one more state barrier that separates us from a single-payer system in the United States. And of course it would further balloon state taxpayer spending by $1 billion (at a minimum) over the first 10 years and would increase the federal debt by $10 billion.

According to OHCA, the plan would add some 175,000 to the Medicaid rolls while promising to shift a similar number to the flawed Obamacare private market in the future (though it’s quite unlikely that portion of the plan will ever happen). Yet one study suggests that half or more of those targeted for expansion are already covered by job-related health insurance.

As the Congressional Budget Office noted, this creates an incentive not to work. The 175,000 targeted by OHCA are able-bodied adults. The proposal would increase from 27 percent to 33 percent the number of Oklahomans dependent on health care entitlements in addition to Medicare.

Read the complete story on NewsOK.com

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Despite bitter resistance in Oklahoma for years to President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, Republican leaders in this conservative state are now confronting something that alarms them even more: a huge $1.3 billion hole in the budget that threatens to do widespread damage to the state’s health care system.

So, in what would be the grandest about-face among rightward leaning states, Oklahoma is now moving toward a plan to expand its Medicaid program to bring in billions of federal dollars from Obama’s new health care system.

What’s more, GOP leaders are considering a tax hike to cover the state’s share of the costs.

“We’re to the point where the provider rates are going to be cut so much that providers won’t be able to survive, particularly the nursing homes,” said Republican state Rep. Doug Cox, referring to possible cuts in state funds for indigent care that could cause some hospitals and nursing homes to close.

Read the complete story from the AP. 

The Oklahoma Health Care Authority has proposed to “rebalance” our state Medicaid system, supposedly to better serve the poor. Unfortunately, a closer look at the plan reveals that it’s just another attempt to backdoor an unaffordable Medicaid expansion.

OHCA has provided few specifics about its plan, but we do know the basics. First, “rebalancing” would create a new health insurance entitlement for up to 628,000 able-bodied adults. OHCA says that only 175,000 would be added to the rolls, but in states that have already undergone “rebalancing,” actual new enrollment surpasses projections by an average of 91 percent. In fact, OHCA’s own consultants have estimated as many as 628,000 able-bodied adults would be eligible under this plan.

A study by the Lewin Group, a prestigious health policy consulting firm, found that more than half of those new Medicaid clients under the “rebalancing” plan are already covered by private insurance plans, most of them job-related. They aren’t uninsured at all.

Worse still, Oklahoma’s Medicaid program already has a lengthy waiting list for truly needy children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities who have been waiting — for a decade in some cases — to receive Medicaid services. So this “rebalancing” would shift hundreds of thousands of already insured Oklahomans onto Medicaid while telling the most vulnerable to step aside.

Read the complete story on NewsOK.com

The Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA) recently announced a 25 percent provider rate cut to SoonerCare, Oklahoma’s Medicaid program, due to anticipated cuts in response to the state’s $1.3 billion budget shortfall. Shortly thereafter, the OHCA proposed the “Medicaid Rebalancing Act of 2020” as a way to purportedly avoid the potential rate reductions. Under this plan, state lawmakers would pursue a Section 1332 waiver to access federal funds though the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.

OHCA’s “rebalancing” plan is a clear attempt to expand Medicaid eligibility and to access federal dollars under Obamacare, while avoiding two politically toxic words in Oklahoma: Medicaid Expansion. Unfortunately, this plan still expands Obamacare in Oklahoma, entangling our state to unsustainable federal funding and increasing the burden on future state budgets.

In the same fashion as big-government policies in Washington, OHCA’s plan punts tough decisions to future generations. For example, the plan proposes removing Medicaid eligibility of 175,000 pregnant women and children who are currently eligible for benefits today and move them to subsidized commercial accounts on the Obamacare exchange, where they would face increased costs and a system that has been described as a complete failure by both providers and insurers. The OHCA uses the alleged savings from this change, as a key component of the funding mechanism for the “rebalancing” plan.

Under federal law, however, Oklahoma could not carry out the plan’s removal of pregnant women and children from Medicaid eligibility until 2019. Thus, the difficult decision, to either remove vulnerable women and children from Medicaid or risk a state budget disaster, would be inherited by legislators who are either not members of the Legislature yet or are not yet in leadership positions. Plus, one of the key funding funding mechanisms for expansion proposed in the plan is a cigarette tax hike, which is an unreliable source that is unlikely to generate the revenue that proponents predict. This is a short-term “fix” that leaves enormous consequences for future Oklahomans and hurts those who are most vulnerable in this system.

In addition, this plan would expand government dependency in Oklahoma to historic levels. The Rebalancing Act would essentially create a new entitlement in our state, expanding Medicaid eligibility to hundreds of thousands of able-bodied adults, regardless of work-status. The OHCA claims only 175,000 of these individuals would apply for the program, but the number of individuals that would become eligible for the program is likely far greater than that. This eligibility expansion would completely alter Medicaid in Oklahoma to a program that is unrecognizable when compared to its original purpose – a safety-net for those who need it most.

Oklahoma policymakers have a choice to make: either leave a legacy of dependency or an endowment of empowerment for future generations. Oklahomans don’t prolong tough decisions or try to excuse themselves from responsibility. Our state officials shouldn’t either. Despite the current financial strain on state government, we can find solutions that do not leave devastating generational repercussions.

Read the complete story on townhall.com

OCPA and FGA release study on Medicaid in Oklahoma

OKLAHOMA CITY—The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs and the Foundation for Government Accountability have recently released a study titled “Out of Balance.” The study analyzes the latest proposal to expand Medicaid in Oklahoma.

A new proposal by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority proposes kicking 175,000 pregnant women and children off Medicaid and into the health care exchange to make room for hundreds of thousands of able-bodied adults. While thousands of Oklahomans with real needs continue to sit on waiting lists for services, OHCA’s own consultants estimate that as many as 628,000 able-bodied adults would be newly eligible for Medicaid under the OHCA’s latest plan.

“The most vulnerable—the population Medicaid was originally designed to serve—deserve access to quality health care,” said Jonathan Small, OCPA president. “Oklahoma shouldn’t ask the most vulnerable to continue to wait for care and lawmakers to accept an unaffordable Medicaid expansion for able-bodied adults whenever options for responsible Medicaid reforms exist.”

The study also takes an in-depth look at the fiscal impacts of expansion in other states.

“In states with available data, Medicaid expansion enrollment surpassed initial projections by an average of 91 percent in 2014,” said Jonathan Ingram, vice president of research at the Foundation for Government Accountability. “States have now signed up more able-bodied adults for Medicaid than they thought would ever enroll – and in many states, more than they thought would even be eligible – leading to billions of dollars in budget overruns.”

Ohio’s Medicaid expansion is currently $3.1 billion over budget and is expected to run $8 billion over budget by the end of 2017. In Illinois, Medicaid expansion has run roughly $1 billion over budget each year. Additionally, Nebraska state actuaries estimated that using commercial plans, as proposed by the OHCA, to expand Medicaid would be nearly twice as expensive as traditional Medicaid expansion.

“OHCA’s proposal guts Insure Oklahoma by removing enrollment camps, work requirements, and accountable cost sharing,” said Small. “Instead of accepting this proposal, lawmakers need to refocus efforts on improving Medicaid for the most vulnerable.”

The two organizations offer six reform ideas, which are outlined in the study.

The full study can be found at www.ocpathink.org/medicaid.

###

OKLAHOMA CITY — Critics of a proposal to raise the tax on cigarettes by $1.50 a pack to shore up the state’s Medicaid system say the plan would not generate the revenue projected.

David Sutton, a spokesman for Phillip Morris USA, said the measure, if passed, would result in some Oklahomans driving to surrounding states with lower taxes to make cigarette purchases. Oklahoma would have the highest tax rate among states in the region if the $1.50 is added, he said.

When residents purchase cigarettes out of state, they take gasoline, grocery and other dollars with them, which reduces revenue to the state in the form of lost sales taxes, Sutton said.

“We don’t have any data or evidence to show people will drive across state lines with an increase in the cigarette tax,” said Carter Kimble, Oklahoma State Department of Health director of state and federal policy.

Read the complete story on tulsaworld.com

Recently, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority announced another scheme to entangle Oklahoma with the Medicaid expansion proposed in the federal Affordable Care Act.

The OHCA has attempted this a few times, and policymakers have wisely rejected the various proposals, refusing to repeat the mistakes of history.

With this attempt, OHCA bureaucrats have tried to box policymakers in by using a set of public relations tactics. First, the OHCA warned the Medicaid program may end. Then, the OHCA declared Medicaid (a taxpayer-funded entitlement program) the largest health insurer in the state. Then, the OHCA warned of cuts to the program, by way of provider cuts of 25 percent. Of course, the media ran with that story, stoking frenzy.

Policymakers have stated that under no scenario, even with the significant revenue declines, will it be necessary to cut provider rates by such a significant number. You won’t see the media rushing to now clarify the panic they helped create.

Read the complete story on journalrecord.com

Bill to Protect Small-Group Health Insurance Market Signed Into Law
Congressman Mullin helps author bill to protect businesses and employees from Obamacare

WASHINGTON – Congressman Markwayne Mullin (OK-02) made the following statement today after the president signed into law legislation Mullin championed to maintain the current definition of the small-group insurance market and help businesses and their employees access quality and affordable health insurance.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, on Jan. 1, 2016, the definition of a small-group market is set to change from 1-50 employees to 1-100 employees. The bipartisan Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees Act (H.R. 1624),  which Mullin helped author along with U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02), gives states the flexibility to increase the small-group threshold if they choose, but removes the federal requirement to change the small-group definition.

The House passed H.R. 1624 on Sept. 28, 2015. The Senate passed it on Oct. 1, 2015.

“I am pleased the president signed this bill into law so that we can move quickly to protect small businesses and their employees from interruptions to health coverage and skyrocketing premiums. I appreciated working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on behalf of hardworking Americans and job creators. This new law respects states’ rights to determine the definition of their small-group markets based on the unique circumstances in each state.”

# # #

Senator Lankford Applauds Passage of Bill to Protect Small Employers From Obamacare Mandate

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator James Lankford (R-OK) today applauded Senate passage of an Obamacare reform bill that he co-sponsored, the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees (PACE) Act. This bill would protect small businesses from healthcare premium increases under Obamacare, by allowing states to maintain the current small group market definition, which applies to businesses with up to 50 employees. Doing so would prevent premium increases and disruption for small and mid-sized businesses, because they’re not held to the same mandates as large companies.

“Years after its implementation, I am still committed to protecting Oklahomans from the harmful effects of Obamacare,” said Lankford. “I’m pleased that this commonsense bill has finally passed Congress and is on its way to the President’s desk for his signature. By allowing states to maintain the current small group market definition of 50 employees, we’re able to protect small businesses from one of the burdens of complying with the law. Many Oklahoma small business owners and officials are concerned about how their company will survive under the Obamacare mandates. Repealing this provision protects the jobs of thousands of Oklahomans.”

Due to Obamacare, the definition of the state-based small group markets is scheduled to change, on January 1, 2016, from 50 to include employers with up to 100 employees. This change would force many small and mid-sized businesses to be subject to different rating rules and requirements, with the potential of increasing the health insurance premiums for small businesses and their employees.  Some studies have predicted that premiums could increase by approximately 18 percent for most mid-sized employers if the small business definition increases to 100.

The House passed the PACE Act (H.R. 1624) on Monday by voice vote and the Senate passed this House-passed version today by voice vote. Lankford co-sponsored the Senate version (S. 1099) during the summer.

Earlier this month, Lankford co-sponsored The Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2015 (S. 2045) to eliminate Obamacare’s High Cost Plan Excise Tax, also known as the “Cadillac Tax.” Lankford has also co-sponsored the Obamacare Repeal Act (S. 339), which would repeal the entire healthcare law.

###

For more information about Senator Lankford, visit: www.lankford.senate.gov