Rigging the evidence

"House Republicans estimate that their plan to place nearly all Medicaid consumers in managed care would trim costs of the program for poor children and families by $360 million annually... The GOP proposal is similar to a recommendation from ... The Ohio Commission to Reform Medicaid." What's wrong with this plan? Three things.

Managed care (which usually means HMO's) tend to work well only if you don't get seriously ill. When my eldest son was hospitalized for the third time in a year, we were told that my private HMO wouldn't pay for any more inpatient time... and that we'd also used up our outpatient visits. We incurred over $3,500 in medical bills that year - during the time we were covered by the HMO. I know how much that hurt, and can only dream of how bad that'd be for someone who needed Medicaid to begin with.

We have no specifics on how this plan is supposed to work. Given GOP trends, I'd bet they mean giving these accounts to private HMOs... which means more overhead costs for fewer benefits, and larger medical bills for those covered. How are you supposed to get yourself off of Medicaid if you get hit with larger bills? It'd make more sense to go to a single payer system.

Here's the biggie: Remember the "volunteer" group, The Ohio Commission to Reform Medicaid, that gave a similar proposal? There's no real surprise there - every last one of the commission was appointed by a Republican - the Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate. Even the Executive Director, Jennifer Carlson, appears to be a long-term beneficiary of the Governor. Both in science and journalism there is a concept known as full disclosure - but it got no heed in this article. Isn't that conveeeeeeeeeeeeenient.

There's three talking points on one important issue - that didn't make the front page yesterday, and won't again tomorrow. It's time to write your letter to the editor, or a short comment to Speak Up!. A letter writing HOWTO is here.