Marty Quinn announces campaign for Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner

Great news! I can't think of anyone else I'd rather have in this position. Incumbent Republican Glen Mulready is term-limited, so this will be an open seat:

Marty Quinn Announces Campaign for Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner

Conservative Businessman and Former State Senator Brings Decades of Industry Experience to the Race

CLAREMORE, OK (July 15th) — Marty Quinn, a small business owner, insurance professional, and longtime conservative leader, today announced his candidacy for Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner.

With over 40 years of experience as an agency owner and manager— Quinn brings unmatched expertise and a deep commitment to public service. A former Chairman of the Senate Insurance Committee and respected voice in the Oklahoma Legislature, Quinn is running to restore transparency, protect consumers, and ensure the Insurance Department works for the people — not the bureaucracy.

State Sen. Pemberton appointed to chair Senate's Retirement & Insurance Committee

Senate Pro Tem Treat Appoints Sen. Pemberton as Retirement and Insurance Chairman

OKLAHOMA CITY – Senate Pro Tem Greg Treat, R-Oklahoma City, today announced the appointment of Sen. Dewayne Pemberton, R-Muskogee, as the chairman of the Senate Retirement and Insurance Committee.

“Sen. Pemberton has a wealth of knowledge and proven background in a number of areas during his time in the Senate,” Pro Tem Treat said. “He is an excellent leader who continues to perform well as a member of our caucus leadership team. Sen. Pemberton is informed and listens to all opinions before making a decision. For these reasons and others is why I think he will make an exceptional chairman of this committee. I appreciate him for accepting this new role in addition to his many others.”

OCPA column: Time to address illegal immigration, uninsured drivers [by giving lawbreakers licenses]

OCPA really is doubling down on giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants (by definition, repeat lawbreakers). So much for believing in the rule of law, eh?

Time to address illegal immigration, uninsured drivers

By Jonathan Small

There’s a link between illegal immigration and uninsured driving in Oklahoma. Those who enter our nation illegally cannot easily obtain auto insurance, yet they still drive on our roads every day. When those illegal immigrants are in a car accident, the other driver is then left footing the bill either out of pocket or through higher insurance premiums.

The best solution to this problem is for the federal government to control our nation’s borders. But, knowing that is not likely in the immediate future, state policymakers must take action to mitigate the harm caused by the federal government’s failure.

One way to reduce a share of the problems created by illegal immigration is for Oklahoma state lawmakers to authorize driver’s licenses for some illegal immigrants—even though that may sound counterintuitive.

Rep. Moore: State budget deficit inspires millions in savings proposals

Budget Deficit Inspires Millions in Savings Proposals

OKLAHOMA CITY – The House Insurance Committee held a recent interim study to review ways to decrease the cost of health insurance, save money and improve health insurance efficiencies.

Representatives of Strategic Cost Containment Concepts (SCCC), powered by AmWINS, presented RX Interceptor & Pharmacy Rebates, a proprietary program to provide significant savings to the state in prescriptions and medical care.

The RX Inceptor Program claims to help reduce prescription claims spend by 30% to 50%. The group works with pharmaceutical advocates to help eligible individuals qualify for savings on high-cost specialty medications. They say that up to 100% of the drug rebates, built-in stop-loss, and a full annual Pharmacy Performance Audit can account for savings to the state. 

OK Rural Association asks Congressional delegation to act on surprise medical billing

The Oklahoma Rural Association weighed in this week on the issue of surprise medical billing by sending the following letter to Oklahoma's Congressional delegation. Oklahoma state legislators are discussing the issue as well, which you can read about here.

January 20, 2020

As a nation, we continue to grapple with the rising cost of health care and health insurance. As you know, one of the most troubling aspects of this trend is the prevalence of hidden costs that are passed onto patients by insurance companies after they deny an out-of-network claim. As you and other members of Congress seek to remedy this, I urge you to use the wisdom and foresight you have lent to other policy issues to mitigate unintended consequences that make the solution further complicate, rather than solve, the original problem.

Some states, like California, have sought to resolve surprise billing through cost controls, but such plans have proved short-sighted. Setting low rates for medical care might sound like an appealing option to keep costs low, but it creates another problem: access. These caps could put doctors out of business. In fact, California is currently experiencing a doctor shortage that leaves many communities underserved, particularly rural farming communities. Rural communities across the country already face doctor shortages and other hurdles to accessing healthcare services. Additional and more severe shortages caused by government rate-setting would unquestionably harm these communities.

New York, on the other hand, has instituted an arbitration system, which empowers a third party to resolve billing disputes between doctors and insurance companies. This system has shown promise, maintaining patient access to vital (and potentially life-saving) care while reducing out-of-network billing by 34% and lowering emergency room fees by 9%.

Any legislation that addresses this problem must recognize that surprise medical bills usually emerge from a dispute between a patient’s insurance and that patient’s doctor. Patients themselves should not be in the middle of these disputes. As you look at potential solutions that protect patients and remove them from the middle of this process, please tread carefully to ensure that high costs are not slashed at the expense of access.

Thank you.
Monica Collison
President
Oklahoma Rural Association

Lawmakers comment on eliminating surprise medical billing

Lawmakers Comment on Surprise Medical Billing

OKLAHOMA CITY – State Reps. Marcus McEntire (R-Duncan), Chris Sneed (R-Muskogee) and Tammy Townley (R-Ardmore) commented today on the ongoing discussions to eliminate surprise medical billing in Oklahoma.

A surprise medical bill is a bill an out-of-network health provider issues to a covered insured person for health care services in an amount greater than the patient’s cost-sharing obligation that would apply for the same services by an in-network provider. What makes these bills surprising is the patient has no knowledge the provider rendering his or her health care services is out of the patient’s network.

"Surprise bills commonly occur when a patient receives care from an out-of-network physician in an in-network hospital," McEntire said.

Negotiations about surprise billing between the Legislature, the Oklahoma Insurance Department, health care providers, and health insurers occurred in earnest last session, but neither consensuinsuras nor a compromise could be reached before the session ended.

“After the last session, we were discouraged about the pace of the surprise billing negotiations,” McEntire said. “However, we are extremely pleased with the pace of negotiations over the interim. We are happy to announce an agreement with health providers and insurance companies to hold enrollees harmless to surprise bills and prohibit the practice of surprise billing. Both the insurance companies and health providers emphatically stated in our meeting that patients should be held harmless.”

Townley said, “It was wonderful to see health insurance companies and health care providers come to the table in a positive environment and work on the legislation for surprise billing in Oklahoma. Our goal from day one was to take care of our Oklahoma consumers! I am so proud of the efforts that have been made in regard to surprise billing.”

Sneed added. “We are excited to be moving forward for Oklahomans with surprise medical billing this session. The majority of parties involved have been to the table numerous times during the interim to work on the issue.”

McEntire said, “We intend to run a bill prohibiting surprise billing during the early part of the upcoming session, but there is still hard work and tough decisions ahead. The difficult challenge is to find an agreed-to method for insurance companies to compensate out-of-network providers. We have encouraged health care providers and insurance companies to negotiate a fair system of compensation or a mediation process and bring it to us. We want to see a payment system on which both sides can agree and a system that does not cause insurance premiums or the cost of health care to rise more than it already is.”

OCPA column: Many Oklahomans "uninsured" only on paper

Many Oklahomans “uninsured” only on paper

By Jonathan Small

An often-overlooked aspect of the Medicaid-expansion debate is that lawmakers are being asked to expend hundreds of millions more in state spending to insure people who are, effectively, already insured.

Oklahoma’s topline uninsured rate of 14.2% gets headlines, particularly since that’s the second-highest uninsured rate in the country. What goes unnoticed is that many of those people can get coverage or treatment today for little cost, and often for free.

Members of the bicameral Healthcare Working Group were recently informed that an estimated 85,000 uninsured Oklahomans currently qualify for significant federal subsidies. Those individuals already have the ability to buy a policy off a federal exchange with little or no out-of-pocket expense.

Another 19,000 uninsured Oklahomans are already qualified for Medicaid.

Put together, those two groups represent more than 100,000 uninsured Oklahomans. But they are uninsured by choice, not as the result of any financial challenges.

Also, policymakers should not ignore the reality that many Oklahomans can also access treatment through Indian Health Service (IHS) facilities and tribal government programs. While access to those facilities is not counted as being insured, federal officials felt the IHS system was good enough that those who used it were not required to pay the federal Affordable Care Act’s penalty for being uninsured.

According to the Census, 9.3% of Oklahoma’s 3.9 million people are American Indian. Admittedly, many of those individuals have insurance, but that figure includes many who do not. The Self-Governance Communication and Education tribal consortium has estimated more than 129,000 uninsured Oklahomans may be American Indians who can access IHS facilities and care. A speaker at a recent legislative hearing estimated 10 percent of Oklahoma’s uninsured are American Indian

As a result, it is feasible that as many as 200,000 technically uninsured Oklahomans already have access to insurance and/or low-cost health treatment. And that doesn’t even account for all the people who obtain care through Federally Qualified Health Centers, free clinics, and similar facilities. So how does it make sense to spend hundreds of millions more in state tax dollars on Medicaid expansion to insure the (effectively) already-insured?

There are better ways to address Oklahoma’s challenges than Medicaid expansion, particularly in the area of rural infrastructure, such as directing Oklahoma’s tobacco settlement funds to rural hospitals and doctors. And it’s worth noting what is occurring in Texas, which has a higher uninsured rate than Oklahoma but also a higher rate of people with private insurance. An official from OU Medicine recently conceded to legislators that Texas’ booming economy has increased private coverage, which has resulted in better-funded hospitals in that state.

Oklahoma should follow Texas’ lead in this area, and focus on adopting policies that result in greater private-sector job growth, rather than follow the ever-bigger government model of failed states like Illinois and California.

Jonathan Small serves as president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.

OCPA column: Medicaid won't reduce inflated hospital bills

Medicaid won’t reduce inflated hospital bills

By Jonathan Small

Most of us have heard of someone who received a wildly implausible bill from a hospital. Among the examples compiled by the website, thehealthy.com, were hospitals that charged $15 per Tylenol tablet, $8 for a “mucus recovery system” (better known as a box of tissues), $53 per non-sterile pair of gloves, $10 for the little plastic cup that holds a patient’s pills, and $23 per alcohol swab.

The retail cost of a Tylenol tablet runs less than 30 cents, meaning the $15 price is a markup of more than 5000 percent. If hospitals are overcharging that much on small items, one wonders how much the markup is on the big-ticket items.

Those prices are the result of a medical system with no price transparency and, therefore, little direct competition. And the lack of transparency leads to “surprise” medical bills that people struggle to pay, and then to lawsuits.

Oklahoma Watch recently reported that Oklahoma hospitals have filed at least 22,250 lawsuits against former patients over unpaid medical bills since 2016.

How did some hospital officials’ respond to that report? Just expand Medicaid.

But experts familiar with the lawsuit issue note that many people being sued are already insured, including some on Medicaid. This problem isn’t caused by lack of coverage; it’s caused by a lack of transparency. Even for routine procedures, it is extremely difficult to get an up-front estimate, and hidden costs are the norm.

However, where price transparency exists at places like the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, it demonstrates conclusively that many other hospitals are dramatically overcharging patients. Comparisons have shown the Surgery Center’s prices are often one-sixth to one-eighth the amount charged elsewhere.

So why is it that the facilities charging the far-higher prices are the ones claiming to be on the verge of insolvency, and not the Surgery Center? One answer is that many of the figures touted by supposedly “broke” hospitals are as bogus as a $15 aspirin pill. Martin Makary, a professor of surgery with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, recently noted that one hospital was caught charging $70,000 for a hip replacement when the commercial reference-based price was $29,000 and the Medicare-allowable amount was $20,000. That means that hospital could claim to have provided $30,000 in “uncompensated” care if it collected “just” $40,000 on a hip replacement, even though that price may represent $10,000 to $20,000 in pure profit.

Expanding Medicaid won’t suddenly cause hospitals to stop inflating bills. In fact, knowing that taxpayers are on the hook may encourage some providers to further boost their charges, and patients will continue to be sued.

If policymakers are serious about reducing health costs and protecting consumers, they need to focus on increasing up-front price transparency and competition in medicine, not expanding government welfare.

Jonathan Small serves as president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.

Independent Insurance Agents of Oklahoma names 2019-20 officers, directors

Independent Insurance Agents of Oklahoma Names 2019-2020 Officers, Directors

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, July 29, 2019 – The Independent Insurance Agents of Oklahoma (IIAO), the state’s largest insurance and property casualty agents’ association, today announced its 2019-2020 officers and board members.  The individuals were formally confirmed earlier this month.

“I could not be more excited to work with this outstanding lineup of independent insurance professionals, “said Denise Johnson, IIAO President & Chief Executive Officer. “They each represent our industry with the utmost professionalism, and are also leaders in their communities. Our members will be the beneficiaries of their leadership, just as their customers have been for many years.”

IIAO Officers:
Director-at-Large: Kathy Resser, VIP Insurance, Edmond
Director-at-Large: Vaughn Graham, Jr., CIC, Rich & Cartmill, Inc., Tulsa
Director-at-Large: Scott Cornelius, ECI Agency, Piedmont
MGA Liaison: Carol Partridge, CIC, ACSR, CISR, Standard Lines Services, Bartlesville
Company Liaison: Mark Gruber, CompSource Mutual, Oklahoma City
Young Agents Liaison: Jake Bramlett, The Bramlett Agency, Ardmore

IIAO Directors:
Chair: Jeff Burton, CIRM, CIC, CPCU, INSURICA, Oklahoma City
Chair-Elect: Chris Mosley, CIC, Mosley Agency, Inc., Chickasha
Treasurer: Stewart Berrong, CIC, CRM, Ed Berrong Agency, Weatherford
Secretary: Jerrad Coots, Burrows Agency, Claremore
State Director: Gerald Keeton, Cole, Paine & Carlin, Oklahoma City
Immediate Past Chair: Chris Floyd, CRM, CIC, Brown & Brown Insurance Professionals, Pryor

IIAO has close to 500 member agencies located in all 77 counties, representing over 150 communities across Oklahoma and employing approximately 10,000 Oklahomans.   IIAO members do not work for insurance companies.  They are independent business owners who provide approximately 80% of the commercial insurance and 35% of personal lines in Oklahoma.

Medical orgs, left-wing political groups plan rally to support Medicaid expansion

A coalition of medical organizations and left-wing activist groups (including Planned Parenthood) is planning a rally at the State Capitol on April 24th to support Medicaid expansion:

COALITION TO EXPAND COVERAGE HOSTS RALLY AT STATE CAPITOL WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 10 A.M.

TULSA, OK — A broad coalition of Oklahomans are holding a rally day at the state Capitol to call on lawmakers to expand health coverage for more than 100,000 currently uninsured Oklahomans. This coverage expansion can be paid for using 90 percent federal dollars.

The rally is set for Wednesday, April 24 at 10 a.m. It will focus on Oklahoma’s opportunity to extend SoonerCare or private health coverage to Oklahomans making below the poverty level. Free buses to the rally will be available from cities across the state.

“Expanding care will help ensure that over 100,000 Oklahomans have access to the care they need while boosting hospitals and other health care providers in our communities across the state,” said Carly Putnam, Policy Director of Oklahoma Policy Institute, a state policy organization that is coordinating the rally. “It’s time we brought Oklahomans’ tax dollars back home to take care of Oklahomans.”

The rally is organized by the Coalition to Expand Coverage, a broad coalition of Oklahoma groups and individuals, including Oklahoma Policy Institute, Together Oklahoma, ACLU of Oklahoma, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Heart Association, CAIR Oklahoma, Coalition of Oklahoma Breastfeeding Advocates, E.B Consulting OKC, Evolution Foundation, Family & Children’s Services, Fellowship Congregational Church UCC, Guiding Right, Inc., Indivisible Stillwater, Improving Lives, Inc, League of Women Voters of Oklahoma, Mental Health Association Oklahoma, Morton Comprehensive Health Services, NAACP Oklahoma City, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Psoriasis Foundation, NASW Oklahoma Chapter, O.B. Hearne DDS, Oklahoma AFL-CIO, Oklahoma Conference of Churches, Oklahoma Heart Association, Oklahoma Hospital Association, Oklahoma Lawyers for Children, Oklahoma Primary Care Association, Oklahoma State Conference NAACP, Oklahoma State Medical Association, Oklahoma Women’s Coalition, Planned Parenthood Great Plains, Potts Family Foundation, Rock Whisperer LLC, St. John Health System, Take Control Initiative, TARC, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, The Oklahoma Academy, and Tulsa CARES. Additional members are joining the coalition on an ongoing basis.

“If we don’t expand coverage, Oklahoma will only fall further behind in health and economic competitiveness,” said Sabine Brown, outreach and advocacy coordinator for Oklahoma Policy Institute and Together Oklahoma. “All Oklahomans are invited to join this effort to make sure we can all see a doctor and get treatment when we need it.” To get information as it's released, learn more about the campaign, or sign on to the coalition, visit coverok.org.

OCPA decries advancement of Senate Medicaid expansion/waiver bill

OCPA statement on Senate Bill 605

After Senate Bill 605 by Greg McCortney (R-Ada) passed the Retirement and Insurance Committee today, Jonathan Small, president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA), released the following statement:

“It’s disappointing that Senate Bill 605, which will significantly reduce the incentives for work and create a new medical welfare entitlement program for up to 628,000 able-bodied, working-age adults, passed the Retirement and Insurance Committee today.

“Annually, more than one million Oklahomans are on Medicaid. Oklahoma’s Medicaid population and costs have already exploded. If Senate Bill 605 becomes law, it will expose Oklahoma to potentially $321 million in new, required Oklahoma taxpayer spending annually.

“Just like the federal government did with teaching hospitals, historical Oklahoma FMAP rates, and Insure Oklahoma, it will eventually reduce its responsibility of any expansion and the next liberal president will gut any ‘Oklahoma Plan’ just as the Obama administration gutted Insure Oklahoma and hurled thousands of Oklahomans into the failed Obamacare exchanges.”

Senate committee passes bill to increase small business access to health insurance

Bill increasing small business owners’ access to health insurance sails out of Senate committee

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Senate Retirement and Insurance Committee unanimously approved a bill by President Pro Tempore Greg Treat that would help more small business owners gain access to quality, affordable health plans.

Senate Bill 943 increases access to association health plans (AHP) by making state law more closely reflect federal rule changes that allow more employer groups and associations to form AHPs based on common geography or industry. An AHP allows small business owners to group together as if a much larger, single employer to obtain health insurance oftentimes at lower rates.

“Association health plans could have a huge impact for small business owners and sole proprietors across Oklahoma – who drive much of the job creation that keeps our economy growing,” said Treat, R-Oklahoma City. “Senate Bill 943 lets small employers and sole proprietors in Oklahoma take advantage of AHPs to gain access to quality, affordable health care plans. This could save small businesses hundreds, if not thousands of dollars each year, resources that can be reinvested back into their companies and employees.”

Senate Bill 943 now heads to the Senate floor for consideration.

OCPA column: short-term health insurance brings more choice, savings

More choices, more savings: Short-term health insurance

By Kaitlyn Finley, policy research fellow at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

Faced with ever-rising health insurance premiums, more Americans are searching for alternatives that won’t break their budget.

Thanks to regulatory action by the Trump administration last August, people in certain states may now take full advantage of a more affordable category of health insurance—short-term, limited-duration medical insurance (also called short-term insurance).

Unlike traditional health insurance plans, these flexible short-term plans are not subject to restrictive Obamacare regulations under federal law. As a result, short-term plans’ premiums can be up to 70 to 80 percent cheaper than certain silver and bronze plans on Obamacare Exchanges.

In addition to cost-savings, consumers may enroll in these plans any time during the year, which may help those who missed the Obamacare enrollment deadline. A recent survey of 1,000 short-term insurance beneficiaries by eHealth found that 51 percent of people would have been uninsured if they did not have access to short-term plans. Overall, recipients of these plans are generally satisfied with their coverage under these plans. eHealth’s survey found 78 percent of people who accessed medical services stated they were happy with the coverage under their short-term plan.

Under current federal regulation, these plans can offer initial coverage for up to 364 days and may be renewable for up to 36 months. In an effort to force more people to purchase Obamacare plans, the Obama administration limited their coverage to three months without the option to renew. The three-month coverage period hindered people who needed flexible health insurance coverage for interim periods, for possibly up to four to twelve months.  For instance, individuals that were still job searching or waiting for open enrollment after their initial three-month period ended were left uninsured with no options.

Although the Trump administration greatly reduced federal regulations for this category of insurance, many states still impose stronger restrictions on short-term plans. For example, state regulations in Maryland, Oregon, and Hawaii limit coverage to 90 days. As of January 1 this year, California has prohibited the sale of short-term plans entirely. Currently, Oklahoma law limits short-term plans to six months with no option to renew.

States should not ban these plans or arbitrarily suppress coverage duration. Consumers should have the ability to review all options and choose the best available insurance plan that fits their coverage needs on their schedule.

Kaitlyn Finley serves as a policy research fellow focusing on health care and welfare policy for the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.

Must read: 'GOP cave on Obamacare repeal is the biggest broken promise in political history'

This is hands down the best article I've seen on the failure of the AHCA (aka 'SwampCare', aka 'RyanCare', aka 'TrumpCare', aka 'ObamaCareLite', aka 'Renege & Repair') by Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner.

Here's part of the article - you can and should read it in full here.

GOP cave on Obamacare repeal is the biggest broken promise in political history

Broken promises are as old as politics itself, and there are many famous examples of them in modern history. President George H.W. Bush's "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge comes immediately to mind, as does President Bill Clinton reneging on his middle-class tax cut, and President Barack Obama never closing Guantanamo Bay. But in each of those cases, those were promises that were made in a given campaign by a given politician. The promise of Obamacare repeal is much different.

Republicans ran on repealing and replacing Obamacare for seven years, over the course of four election cycles. They won the House majority in 2010 in large part because of the backlash against the passage of Obamacare — and the vow to "repeal and replace" Obamacare was part of their "Pledge to America" campaign document that year. The botched rollout of Obamacare helped them win the Senate in 2014. House candidates, Senate candidates, gubernatorial candidates, and even state legislative candidates ran against Obamacare — and won.

Though President Trump was always an unorthodox candidate on healthcare (vacillating between praising single-payer and touting a free market plan), he consistently campaigned on repealing and replacing Obamacare, and exploited news of spiking premiums in the weeks leading up to the presidential election.

Republicans were always moving the goal posts on voters. That is, during campaign season, they made boasts about repeal, and then once in office, they talked about procedural complications. In 2010, they campaigned on repeal, but by 2011, they said they needed the Senate. In 2014, they won the Senate, but by 2015 they said as long as Obama was in office, nothing would become law. In 2016, they told conservative voters, even reluctant ones, that if they voted for Trump despite any reservations, they'd finally be able to repeal Obamacare. In November, voters gave them unified control of Washington. And yet after just two months on the job, they have thrown in the towel and said they're willing to abandon seven years of promises.

There are a lot of people who want to conveniently lay the blame for this stunning failure on recalcitrant members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. If only these conservative hardliners were willing to give way, we'd be on the road to repeal, defenders of leadership would like to have us believe. This is convenient, both because there are always people in Washington eager to take aim at conservative purists, and also because it has the makings of a great ironic hot take for journalists: "How conservatives saved Obamacare."

Now, let me be clear, in past fights, I've never been reluctant to criticize hardliners when I thought that they were being unreasonable or irresponsible. For instance, I disagreed with the hard-line position on the debt ceiling, didn't think forcing a government shutdown to defund Obamacare would work, and supported the deal that made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent (as opposed to letting them all expire). But I don't think it's fair to scapegoat Freedom Caucusers here. They are being blamed for making the naive mistake of assuming that Republicans wanted to do what they were promising to do for seven years.

In this case, the hardliners were playing a productive role by pointing out the real policy consequences of the piecemeal approach being pursued by the House leadership. Though we'll never know for sure how the numbers might have looked if a vote had taken place, it's clear that many centrist members of the Republican caucus were also prepared to vote this bill down. House conservatives, if they could be blamed for anything, it's for having the audacity to urge leadership to actually honor seven years of pledges to voters to repeal Obamacare. If anybody was moving the goal posts, it wasn't Freedom Caucusers, it was those who were trying to sell a bill that kept much of Obamacare's regulatory architecture in place as a free market repeal and replace plan.

Sure, I know, Republicans had a narrow majority, and they could only pass something through the Senate by reconciliation, which imposes limitations. But the thing is, Republicans don't hide behind the vagaries of Senate procedure during campaign season. Trump did not win the Republican nomination telling rallies of thousands of people, "We're going to repeal and replace Obamacare — as long as it satisfies the Byrd rule in the judgment of the Senate parliamentarian!"

What's so utterly disgraceful, is not just that Republicans failed so miserably, but that they barely tried, raising questions about whether they ever actually wanted to repeal Obamacare in the first place.

Read the full article at the Washington Examiner (they really need to tone down the popup ads, though...).

House Freedom Caucus wins, ObamaCare "Repair" pulled

Prominent Freedom Caucus members who led the fight against the AHCA
L-R: Chairman Mark Meadows (NC), Justin Amash (MI), Thomas Massie (KY), Raul Labrador (ID), Jim Jordan (OH)

After a lot of drama and negotiations this week over the Affordable Health Care Act, U.S. House leadership pulled the bill and canceled a vote on the measure. The ObamaCare repeal replacement repair plan had taken heavy criticism from conservatives in both the House and Senate, but especially from members of the House Freedom Caucus.

Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) of the Freedom Caucus called it “[O]ne of the worst bills I have seen in my 30 years as a county commissioner, legislator, district attorney and now congressman,”

After seven years of promising to "repeal and replace ObamaCare", Speaker Paul Ryan and President Trump came up with a lame excuse of a healthcare plan, with no full repeal, no full replacement, and essentially just tinkering around the edges.

Earlier in the week, it looked like the bill would pass, with a lot of strong-arming from leadership and pressure from Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. Even Oklahoma's Jim Bridenstine (a Freedom Caucus member) caved and lent his support late Wednesday night - although I imagine he might regret that decision now.

However, most Freedom Caucus members held firm in their opposition, and after the vote was postponed to today, then to this afternoon, other more moderate Republicans began to bail. Now, it appears that House Republicans may be moving on from healthcare reform altogether, rather than taking up the repeal bill passed with almost unanimous Republican support just last year that President Obama then vetoed.

From Allahpundit at HotAir: "So … that’s it? An ill-conceived two-month effort in the House falls short and Republicans throw in the towel on seven years of trying to replace ObamaCare? The White House doesn’t want to offer its own alternative? McConnell has nothing in the pipeline he might want to suggest?"

After the bill was pulled, President Trump told news reporter Robert Costa "No, I don’t [regret starting his agenda with healthcare], but in a way I’m glad I got it out of the way."

After posting that quote, Allahpundit continued: "You’re glad you “got it out of the way”? Republican voters handed them the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016, and we got exactly 63 days of meaningful effort to unseat O-Care."

Here's what Erick Erickson said at TheResurgent about this:

The House Freedom Caucus just saved the Republican Party from itself and saved the United States from a Republican attempt to just do something on health care no matter how bad that something might be.

They stood on principle and are being assailed for it by the Republican establishment.

The legislation was deeply flawed and would have hurt a great many Americans. It would have made it harder for free market solutions to lower costs in health care and would have harmed senior citizens.

Obamacare is a terrible piece of legislation and Republicans promised for seven years to repeal it. The American Health Care Act embraced Obamacare and kept it. The House Freedom Caucus stood up both to the Republican leadership in Congress and President Trump and demanded promises made be promises kept. They also exposed Republicans as having no intention of ever really repealing Obamacare.

In 2015, Republicans passed a plan through Congress that would have repealed Obamacare. All the people who voted for it are still there. It passed the House and Senate. That should have been the starting framework. But like the dog that caught the car, Republicans did not know what to do once they finally had the House, Senate, and Presidency.

Their first reaction was to abandon their small government principles and free market beliefs to prop up a government run health care scheme. The only people who stood up for the free market and the people are members of the House Freedom Caucus. They are owed our thanks.

Lastly, I should note that the only reason we have a House Freedom Caucus is because John Boehner led an establishment coup of the Republican Study Committee. The once great organization converted into an organization that rubber stamps the agenda of leadership with elaborate kabuki theater to make it seem like the outcome was in jeopardy when it never was. Sadly, the RSC’s behavior in this proves the House Freedom Caucus is still needed.

Republicans need accountability partners, not yes men. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and the House Freedom Caucus are brave to shoulder the weight of accountability when others wish they would serve as yes men. They have done well today.

Like I said earlier this month, Republicans were elected to power based on the promise of full repeal. We expect nothing less than full repeal. Republican member of Congress need to keep their promise, and pass full repeal of ObamaCare.

If they don't follow through, then what is the point in electing them?

Bridenstine: I will vote “Yes” on AHCA

Statement on Obamacare Repeal

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”.

Op-Ed: Real health care solutions available

Real health care solutions available

Let us start talking about health care by getting a few things out of the way.

First, looking for government solutions to health care is a lost cause. We can quibble, but in the end, any plans coming out of D.C. are going to be based on special interests and political advantage. The second is the error of conflating health care with insurance. Health care insurance is not health care, any more than car insurance is car maintenance. To fix our system’s problems, we have to move away from treating health insurance as a cost-sharing plan for non-catastrophic, non-major medical care.

Real solutions are happening right now across Oklahoma and the U.S. as providers in several areas of care are stepping away from the fantasy pricing of the insurance-based system. A growing number of providers are offering transparent pricing and bundled care for their goods and services.Would you like to get effectively unlimited care as needed from your physician for $50-$100 a month? There is a growing number of physicians doing just this. It is a model called Direct Primary Care.

In this model, clients pay a monthly subscription fee. Routine care, even for things like stitches, are covered by the subscription. Most include the ability to contact the physician digitally or by phone with questions or concerns, which becomes a great convenience for clients. Many also include the ability to get needed medications, labs, and imaging without the normally bloated pricing, often for pennies on the dollar.

These savings alone, in a great many cases, are more than enough to cover the cost of the monthly subscription.

Honest and competitive pricing is being realized in other areas as well. Not long ago, I was looking to get X-rays for a client. A certain nonprofit quoted a $350 price tag, which included the radiologist’s report. At an imaging center not taking insurance, I was able to get the same service for $56. You see similar differences in pricing for MRI, CT, and other imaging.

Surgery is another area benefiting clients with price honesty and transparency.There are now state-of-the-art surgery centers in Oklahoma and across the U.S. that actually list their prices, and those prices are often 10-20 percent of the price charged in hospitals and other insurance-based systems. It isn’t rare for the prices at such centers to turn out to be less than the out-of-pocket portions for the same procedures done at locations playing the insurance game.

So, right now, there is a growing availability of care that costs less than many spend for coffee, internet, or a phone in a month. Honest, market-based pricing is bringing down costs, and making care more affordable and accessible. Though we have a long way to go, there is a health care revolution happening now, and it is being done by patients and providers.

For those interested, the Free Market Medical Association is a great source to find and reach out to the health care innovators and providers that are bringing real solutions to our communities.

Dr. Shannon Grimes is a chiropractor in Tahlequah, former chairman of the Cherokee County Republican Party, and current chairman of the Cherokee County Libertarian Party.

"Open Enrollment"? Samaritan Ministries is always open!

2016 health insurance open enrollment is currently about halfway through, with a deadline of January 31st, 2016. The ObamaCare tax/penalty for not having health insurance is substantially higher for 2016 than it was in previous years: 2.5% of household income, or $695 per adult - whichever is higher.

Costs for health insurance have skyrocketed, and competition has plummeted; in fact, premiums in Oklahoma are set to jump 35%, with only two companies offering plans here. Some states have only one insurance company available.

I've blogged previously about my wife and I being members of Samaritan Ministries, a healthcare-sharing ministry. We opted out of traditional health insurance three years ago, and joined this wonderful organization.

Here are a few distinctives about Samaritan Ministries:

• No narrow enrollment period

Unlike traditional insurance, you can sign up with Samaritan Ministries at any time of the year.

• Stable, affordable cost

The monthly cost ranges from $180 for a single person under 26, to $495 for a 3+ person family. Monthly share rates increase only by a two-thirds vote of the membership, so the cost is much more stable than health insurance.

• Usable

Health insurance deductibles can easily be $5,000 or more, in addition to other out-of-pocket costs. Health-care sharing ministries like Samaritan Ministries have a few things that aren't eligible to share (see their guidelines), but generally speaking the amount you are personally responsible for is $300 - but even that can be eliminated if you receive discounts on your medical bills.

Personal example: in 2015, between my wife's pregnancy/childbirth and my emergency appendectomy, we had about $50,000 in medical bills. After getting self-pay discounts of nearly $15,000, the remainder (about $35,000) was shared to the penny by fellow Samaritan Ministries members. We weren't out anything - no $5,000 deductible, nothing.

• Biblical

Samaritan Ministries applies Biblical principles in every aspect of the ministry. From membership qualifications and lifestyles, to ministry accountability, to what health needs are eligible to share (i.e. no paying for abortions, etc).

• Personal touch

Samaritan Ministries has a very personal touch. Those cards in the picture above? That represents about 55 families across the country who paid my medical bills when I had an emergency appendectomy. Members send their monthly shares directly to members with medical needs, and are encouraged to send cards or notes and to pray for the member in need. When did your insurance company ever do that?!

• Exempt from penalty/tax

Although not considered "insurance", Samaritan Ministries (and a few other health-care sharing ministries) meets ObamaCare's requirement to have insurance or pay a penalty/tax. HCSMs were specifically exempted in the Affordable Care Act.

• Physician flexibility

Rather than being tied into specific networks,Samaritan Ministries members have the flexibility to go to whichever physicians and facilities they desire. As a self-pay patient, you enable the doctor's office to cut out paperwork and insurance hassles, and generally are able to receive significant discounts.


In our three years as members of Samaritan Ministries, we have submitted two medical needs. Read about our first one here, and see how needs are submitted. Read about our second one here, and find out about bill reductions and self-pay discounts. You can also read other posts I've done about Samaritan Ministries here and here.

More Information

Currently, there are over 50,000 families (more than 165,000 individuals) participating in Samaritan Ministries. For more information about why they do, visit SamaritanMinistries.org. You can view videos, testimonials, Frequently Asked Questions, the Guidelines, the Application Form, and much more.

If you are interested in joining, I'd be more than happy to talk with you. You can call me at (918) 869-6000, or email me at JamisonFaught@MuskogeePolitico.com. When a member refers someone who then becomes a member, Samaritan Ministries gives the referring member a credit.

Key: ObamaCare - Alive and Well in Oklahoma?

ObamaCare: Alive and Well in Oklahoma?

The overwhelming passage of SQ 756 this past November, left Oklahomans thinking that our state opted out of Obamacare. Unfortunately, that would be wrong. Likewise, most Oklahomans probably think passage of SQ 756 sent a strong message to state officials that they opposed Obamacare and wanted no part of it. Unfortunately, that would also be wrong.

A cornerstone of Obamacare is the mandate directing all states establish a “health exchange” (HE). (Creative names for HE’s such as HUBS or Enterprise are being used to make them more palatable.) Without the establishment of HE’s Obamacare cannot be implemented. Legislative leaders and the Governor have been pushing to establish a HE and accept a $54 million federal grant. Recently, because of public pressure and opposition by some conservative legislators, the Governor reversed herself on the acceptance of the $54 million grant. Rejecting the federal money is good, but the worst part of the proposal, the HE, is still being pushed by the Governor and legislative leaders.

I believe this is the most important issue we face this year and possibly in a generation for three reasons. First, it establishes the cornerstone of Obamacare that makes it possible to move to a single payer system controlled by Washington. Second, it will fundamentally change our political system allowing the federal government total control over all health care. Thirdly, it further changes what we think the federal government’s legal role and authority is over us as individuals and states and indoctrinates a new generation to believe that the federal government is the final authority in all things.

I have been asked many times why the Governor and legislative leaders are pushing for complying with this mandate. They claim we must implement an HE or Washington will force it’s version on us. But this doesn’t make sense because we are creating the HE because of their mandate. Furthermore, Obamacare gives the federal government full authority to change anything a state establishes so there are no guarantees states can control the final outcome. Another reason given by the Governor and legislators is that “we need to have a seat at the table.” This accomplishes little to nothing when Washington controls the agenda and we effectively accede to that control. Also, they say this is the best we can do while lawsuits run their course.

But, once this system is in place, it will be practically impossible to undo the hundreds of new agencies and layers of bureaucracy. Milton Friedman once said, ’nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.’

Finally, it’s implied that the free market isn’t working and that the insurance industry hasn’t provided HE’s for consumers. The truth is the industry already does provide excellent options for consumers. Go online and you’ll find any insurance coverage you desire or just look in the yellow pages. Health care continually goes up primarily, because of government mandates and excessive regulation. Obamacare is a violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and we should use our constitutional authority to prohibit it from being implemented in Oklahoma.

State Representative Charles Key (R-OKC) is the Chairman of the House Insurance Committee, and represents House District 90.

Crawford: Cox accidentally ran Inhofe endorsement ad

In a follow-up to our stories on July 22nd (BREAKING NEWS: Crawford Running 1998 Ad With Inhofe Endorsement and Inhofe: Crawford Ad "Inappropriate"; "Not Endorsing Crawford"), the John Crawford for Insurance Commissioner campaign has clarified the events behind the running of the ad.

According to Crawford, the ad (which first run in his 1998 re-election campaign) was mistakenly run by Cox Communications. Crawford had delivered two commercials to Cox - one to be run, and the other (with the Inhofe endorsement) for them to look at filming a similar one (but without the Inhofe section). A Cox employee inadvertently uploaded the wrong ad, which ran on television for a few days. Cox told the Crawford campaign that "this was [an] unintentional, human error."

Since then, the Crawford campaign has pulled the ad both from the airwaves, and from YouTube. The ad with the Inhofe endorsement had been posted on his website as well, but it no longer is on the internet.

While this may be the case, it does not explain why the Crawford campaign knowingly placed the ad on YouTube and on his website. A Cox employee might have mistakenly aired the wrong commercial, but they could not have edited his website. In addition, the ad was re-worked to include a "paid for by" disclaimer reflecting his 2010 account, so some work had to have been done on the ad before running it, and I find it hard to believe that Cox did not ask for approval on the re-worked edition.