Controlling Board membership may be altered to provide okay for Medicaid expansion

It looks like Gov. John Kasich will get his Medicaid expansion approved by the Controlling Board.

I previously shared with you his plans to bypass the Ohio General Assembly, which had removed the expansion from prior bills and is still debating the issue.

Last week, the Department of Medicaid submitted a request to the panel seeking authorization to spend federal funds totaling $500,000 million in FY14 and $2 billion in FY15 to extend the program to cover citizens up to 138% of the federal poverty level, as originally proposed by Gov. John Kasich in his biennium budget bill.

The item is scheduled for the Controlling Board's meeting on Oct. 21.

The Controlling Board is a 7-member body comprised of:

• The Director of Budget and Management, or designee (the President of the Board)
• The Chair of the Finance and Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives
• The Chair of the Finance Committee of the Senate
• Two members of the House appointed by the Speaker of the House, one from the majority party and one from the minority party
• Two members of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate, one from the majority party and one from the minority party

In order for the expansion to be approved, at least one Republican would need to vote in favor of it. The two House Republicans have previously expressed opposition to the plan, but the two Republican Senators have been silent on the matter.

Today Gongwer Ohio (subscription may be required) reported that House Speaker Bill Batchelder (R-Medina) "plans to alter his chamber's membership on the panel prior to next Monday's meeting and will seat at least one member that will give the go-ahead to the governor's plan."

Rep. Ron Amstutz expressed his displeasure with the governor's Controlling Board move last week. Rep. Cliff Rosenberger said he would vote against expansion at the Controlling Board, and told Gongwer he hadn't heard of any plans to replace him on the panel.

From Gongwer:

Rep. Rosenberger said he'd prefer to continue to debate the policy through the full legislature but added that he has been on record as opposing a straight expansion and instead prefers the "reform" approach embodied in various proposals, including the bill (SB 208*) introduced last week by Sen. David Burke (R-Marysville). (See Gongwer Ohio Report, October 10, 2013)

"There's an opportunity for members of the General Assembly to still hear those options," he said, adding that he's concerns about the impact of pushing the expansion through the board versus the legislature.

"I would be a 'no' vote on the Controlling Board on the issue," Rep. Rosenberger said.

While Speaker Batchelder has been a staunch opponent to expansion, as it was part of the vilified "Obamacare" package, swapping out his reluctant Controlling Board members could prove to be politically expedient as it would provide cover to some of his caucus members who support expansion.

A Controlling Board vote averts putting those members on record for where they stand on separate legislation, thus protecting them from potential primary challenges from the right. Meanwhile, he's also boosting the policy aims of his fellow Republican governor, whose name is being bandied about as a presidential candidate in 2016.

Also a matter of conventional wisdom: Gov. Kasich wouldn't have scheduled a Controlling Board item if he wasn't assured of the votes.

Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina) said in an interview Tuesday that his caucus is aware of his opposition to expansion, however he has told his members on the panel - Sen. Bill Coley (R-Liberty Twp.) and Sen. Chris Widener (R-Springfield) - to vote their conscience and their districts.

Nevertheless, he also said he doesn't view the proposal before the board to be the actual "expansion," per se. That would come through an executive order from the governor, he said. The Controlling Board agenda item would merely authorize the transfer of funds.

Kasich has been criticized by conservatives in the state for his plan to expand Medicaid. Here is guest post that details the 'myths' associated with the expansion, as promoted by the Kasich administration talking points on the plan.

Others, including State Rep. Barbara Sears, left-leaning groups and many Democrats, support the expansion of the government program.

Had this been Democrats planning to replace board members in order to provide a favorable vote for their governor, I'm sure the Republican Party would be having a conniption. As it's a Republican governor, expect the party to stand behind their man, regardless of party principles.

Guest Post - Oops! A whopping $47B Obamacare-Medicaid expansion error for Ohio

Opportunity Ohio found a whopping error in the recent claims that expanding Medicaid in Ohio would save us money. Aside from the fact that adding more people into a program cannot possibly result in less cost, the key is capping the rates. But what if we cap the rates and don't expand Medicaid?

As the Bard says, "Aye, there's the rub."

Here's the text of the report. For the full details, including footnotes, go here.

A number of individuals have falsely characterized a recent PowerPoint presentation given to the Ohio Senate Finance Committee’s Medicaid Subcommittee by the Health Policy Institute of Ohio (HPIO).

The Columbus Dispatch flashed a headline that erroneously claims the presentation proved “Medicaid expansion would cost Ohio less than doing nothing.” The Dispatch’s editorial board followed up by asserting that the presentation proved that expanding Medicaid would “save the state money in the long term.” The Columbus Business First reported that the presentation showed that “Ohio could actually save by expanding Medicaid.” These headlines and reports would have Ohioans believe expanding one of the largest and fastest-growing line items in the state budget can reduce spending. But this is not what the HPIO actually found.

The authors created three different scenarios. In the first scenario, Ohio does not expand Medicaid and the program grows at 7.2 percent annually, what HPIO reports as the average annual growth rate since 2004. It should be noted that in a report released earlier this year, HPIO expected future Medicaid growth to average 5.6 percent per year without expansion, based on Ohio’s most recent actuarial analysis of Medicaid. It does not explain why it now assumes 7.2 percent growth as the baseline (without expansion) moving forward.

In the second scenario, Ohio caps its annual Medicaid spending growth at 5 percent and also expands Medicaid eligibility. In the final scenario, Ohio caps its annual Medicaid spending growth at 4.5 percent while also expanding Medicaid eligibility. Capping Medicaid spending growth is not related to expanding Medicaid eligibility. If Ohio wished to impose such a cap, it could do so without expanding Medicaid. The only valid comparison is one in which the only changing variable is whether or not the state expands Medicaid eligibility.

For example, the presentation asserts that by capping annual Medicaid spending growth at 5 percent, Ohio can expand Medicaid and still save $2 billion between now and 2025, when compared to 7.2 percent annual growth. But, using that same data, Ohio could save more than $48 billion during the same time period by capping annual growth at 5 percent and not expanding Medicaid eligibility. So, when using an honest comparison, Medicaid expansion will actually increase taxpayers’ costs by $46 billion, even if the state is able to aggressively reduce annual growth.

Choosing not to provide any specific recommendations to reduce the annual growth in Medicaid, HPIO instead provides a listing of possible new revenues to offset higher costs. Of course, increasing revenues does not lower spending. But even at the assumed lower annual growth rates, Medicaid spending would still double within the next 15 years. For comparison, the U.S. economy is expected to grow only 4.9 percent during the next decade. Ohio can expect to see slower growth, as the U.S. economy has historically grown 1.5 times as fast as Ohio’s economy.  If this trend continues, Ohio’s economy will grow by just 3.3 percent during the next decade. The Ohio Department of Development also expects Ohio’s economy to grow slower than the national average in the coming years.

This means Medicaid will continue to consume more and more funding, crowding out resources for other state priorities, even under the HPIO’s assumed lower Medicaid growth rates. Worse yet, the HPIO spending projections are based on the same flawed designs highlighted in a  Foundation for Government Accountability-Opportunity Ohio report published earlier this year. For example, HPIO uses Medicaid managed care rates for current adult enrollees to estimate the costs of covering newly-eligible individuals. However, evidence from states that previously expanded Medicaid eligibility to cover working-age adults without children found this population to be much more expensive to cover than parents. Additional research published by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that costs were an average of 60 percent higher to provide the same benefits package to childless adults as they were for low- income parents.

HPIO flawed analysis is also evident in its assumption that just 58 percent of all newly-eligible individuals will sign up for Medicaid after expansion. Even among the uninsured, HPIO assumes just 70 percent of newly-eligible individuals will enroll. These are much lower than other projections of participation, including projections by actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. States that have previously expanded Medicaid to cover working-age adults without children also relied on projections similar to those given by HPIO.  Those states experienced participation rates that far exceeded what was initially expected.

The HPIO presentation given to the Medicaid Subcommittee adds very little to the debate over Medicaid expansion in Ohio. It recycles old projections based upon faulty assumptions. The only “new” material is the conclusion that capping the annual growth in Medicaid spending will reduce total Medicaid spending, but this has no relevance to the debate at hand. Such a cap has nothing to do with Medicaid expansion, and conflating the two is intellectually dishonest. When comparing apples to apples, where the only changing variable is whether or not the state expands Medicaid, the only valid and fact-based conclusion is that Medicaid expansion will cost taxpayers much more.”

AFP-Ohio says Rep. Sears and Pres. Obama are the same when it comes to Medicaid expansion

Press release from Americans for Prosperity - Ohio:

Americans for Prosperity-Ohio: No Difference Between Rep. Sears’ and President Obama on Medicaid Expansion 

COLUMBUS - Americans for Prosperity – Ohio is expressing their strong opposition to proposed legislation aimed at expanding Medicaid in the state of Ohio.  According to a recent Columbus Dispatch story, Rep. Barbara Sears (R-47) plans to introduce roughly a dozen Medicaid bills in the next few weeks with the end-goal of expanding Medicaid in the state.  The expansion of Medicaid is made possible through Obamacare.

“Rep. Sears and President Obama are both calling for the expansion of the Medicaid system.  How many blank checks and empty promises are we going to allow Washington to pass onto the states before we stop falling for it?,” said Eli Miller, State Director of Americans for Prosperity – Ohio. “The federal government can barely meet its current financial obligations.  We cannot allow Ohio families and businesses to be left holding the bag when, not if, the federal government realizes they cannot meet the financial obligations promised surrounding Medicaid expansion.”

According to the Columbus Dispatch story, Medicaid expansion legislation would need to pass the Ohio General Assembly in October of this year so that enrollment could begin in January 2014.

“At a time when even the Obama Administration is essentially admitting defeat by delaying key provisions of Obamacare, Rep. Sears should not recklessly and irresponsibly tie our state’s finances and the physical health and well-being of our most vulnerable citizens to this eventual disaster,” continued Miller. “We call on all members of the Ohio General Assembly to support Ohio families, stand up for fiscal responsibility, and oppose Rep. Sears and President Obama’s Medicaid expansion.”

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen-leaders committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and intrusiveness of government is the best way to promote individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans.  For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org

###

Batchelder: House won't act on Medicaid bills before recess

Gongwer is reporting that the Ohio House will not act on any Medicaid overhaul bill before their recess. House Speaker Bill Batchelder said he doesn't think the House can pass the legislation before they take their summer break beginning June 30.

"My sense is that at this point in time, we cannot complete that work (before June 30) but we will continue the work,” he told reporters. “We can’t do anything before the break, in my opinion, just given the dynamics..."

Is new Sears bill another version of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion for Ohio?

I'll admit to not being an expert on the Medicaid expansion that Gov. John Kasich proposed for Ohio - as part of Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare - but this new bill introduced by Rep. Barbara Sears sure sounds a lot like it.

The House, after significant public pressure from conservatives and tea party groups, removed the Medicaid expansion from the budget bill (H.B. 59) earlier in the year. Rep. Sears was extensively criticized for her role in pushing the expansion and for what some considered was a violation of the Health Care Freedom Amendment overwhelmingly passed by Ohioans. She responded to those allegations, saying she did, in fact, support the Health Care Freedom Amendment, though she believed a pending bill would conflict with that amendment.

Speaker Bill Batchelder told reporters that a bill separate from the budget could be passed by the House before the end of June.

The press release below details some of the provisions of her legislation:

Rep. Sears Introduces Medicaid Reform Legislation

COLUMBUS—Today, State Representative Barbara Sears (R- Monclova Township) introduced legislation requiring the Director of Medical Assistance to implement Medicaid reforms that will identify ways to lower costs, reduce uncompensated care, and extend coverage to Ohio’s most vulnerable citizens.

The legislation would extend coverage to Ohioans under 138% of the federal poverty level and will provide critical health care services to Ohio’s poorest citizens. New enrollees in the Medicaid program will be fully funded by the federal government for the first three years. The bill provides protections for Ohio should the federal assistance percentage decrease below the specified amount after the third year.

Additional provisions of this legislation include encouraging personal responsibility through cost sharing, promoting employment-related services, and ensuring those who abuse narcotics receive proper treatment.

“Ohio’s Medicaid system has made substantial improvements over the past few years and this legislation furthers that effort,” Rep. Sears said. “By providing a ladder up and out of poverty through quality care, we are allowing for citizens to achieve greater self sufficiency and creating a healthier Ohio.”

The bill also includes requiring the Medicaid director to present a report to the General Assembly on the progress being made and specifies that the Joint Legislative Committee on Medicaid Technology and Reform consider and review the reforms implemented by this legislation.

-30-

The bill will be assigned a number Tuesday, but here is a link to the language submitted, as provided by her office.

Rep. Sears responds to claim that she's helping to implement Obamacare in Ohio

This past week Rep. Barbara Sears was accused of supporting the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) and opposing Ohio's Healthcare Freedom Act.

An article appearing at RedState.com and FreedomWorks.org also called into question her motivations, stating:

"Not only has she received a substantial amount of financial contributions from the health care industry, she currently works at a health insurance provider and recently passed her own bill which helps implement Obamacare."

I noted that the article did not quote her, nor did it say that she failed to respond to a request for comment. So I contacted her and asked her to respond.

Below is her response, as sent to me, though I have modified the formatting to make it easier to read.

It is always important to get both sides before making a decision and this response allows you to do just that. I understand Rep. Sears is also scheduled to be a guest with Fred LeFebvre on 1370 WSPD tomorrow morning.

From Rep. Sears:

The following are my thoughts regarding several issues discussed in Breeanne Howe’s article. First, it’s always disappointing when someone chooses to make inferences both personal and professional without taking the time to look at facts or do even the minimum amount of research.

I appreciate that you reached out to me for some background. I have tried to summarize my comments in order of the article not to infer that the article is remotely creditable but to simply to review and comment process.

HB 91(Young – Thompson)

I am supportive of our constitutional Healthcare Freedom Amendment as passed by Ohioans. In fact, Representative Maag and I sponsored HJR2 in the 129th General Assembly which was the Healthcare Freedom resolution; the Senate companion resolution SJR 5 which was the vehicle that passed the Senate and failed in the House by 1 vote (it received 59 and needed 60) prior to the Citizens initiated Healthcare Freedom Amendment reaching the ballot.

The same provisions that were added to protect our private marketplace and passed overwhelmingly by Ohioans make HB 91 unworkable in my opinion.

Below is a summary of my thoughts regarding the interaction of HB 91 and our Constitutional amendment – Healthcare Freedom Act. It seems illogical to push legislation that would work towards the destruction of our private healthcare marketplace. I have yet to hear a workable argument that suggests that HB 91 doesn’t violate our Constitution.

From HB 91

Sec. 3964.02. (A) A health insurance issuer operating in this state shall not accept any remuneration, credit, or subsidy, as described in 42 U.S.C. 18082, that may result in the imposition of penalties against any employer or individual in this state.

(B) If a health insurance issuer violates division (A) of this section, the issuer's license to issue new business in the state shall be suspended immediately and until such time as the issuer represents it has returned that remuneration, credit, or subsidy to its source and will decline any such future remuneration, credit, or subsidy. Such suspensions shall not be construed as impairing the right of contract or the right to continue or renew existing business in the state.

I believe that if we pass HB 91, we violate Section 21(b) and Section 21(c) of the Healthcare Freedom Amendment.

To put this into practical terms, if a carrier were to accept funding under the terms outlined in the PPACA, it is possible that an employer could be penalized. How could this happen?

The PPACA requires that:

1. If an employer with more than 50 fulltime equivalent employees, who does not offers health insurance coverage and has at least one employee who receives a premium tax credit or cost sharing subsidy in the exchange, the employer would then be subject to a penalty for not offering coverage. The penalty is $2,000 annually times the number of full-time employees minus 30 in the first year, and grows annually.

2. If an employer with more than 50 fulltime equivalent employees offers health insurance that does not cover at least 60% of typical health care expenses and an employee chooses to buy on the Exchange and receive a premium tax credit, the employer would then be subject to a penalty for not offering affordable coverage. The penalty is $3,000 for each fulltime employee receiving a tax credit up to $2,000 annually times the number of full-time employees minus 30 in the first year, and grows annually.

3. If an employer with more than 50 fulltime equivalent employees offers health insurance with any employee paying more than 9.5% of family income for the employer coverage and an employee chooses to buy on the Exchange and receive a premium tax credit, the employer would then be subject to a penalty for not offering affordable coverage. The penalty is $3,000 for each fulltime employee receiving a tax credit up to $2,000 annually times the number of full-time employees minus 30 in the first year, and grows annually.

If any employer is put in a position “that may result in the imposition of penalties against any employer or individual in this state.” “[T]he issuer’s license to issue new business in the state shall be suspended immediately” (HB 91-130).

The issuer can renew policies but shall be prohibited from the sale of health insurance and Ohioans will be prohibited to purchase health insurance through the carrier. (HB 91-130)

The Healthcare Freedom Constitutional Amendment passed by 66% of Ohio and in all 88 counties in Ohio states:

• Section 21 (A) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.
• Section 21 (B) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance.
• Section 21 (C) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance.

Section 21 (E) (3) “Penalty or fine” means any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary or wage withholding or surcharge or any named fee established by law or rule by a government established, created, or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.”

I could suggest that if we pass HB 91, then we violate Section 21(b) and Section 21(c) in that we will be prohibiting both the sale of health insurance and an individual’s right to purchase health insurance by imposing law and rules that would be specifically used to punish a carrier should they accept any remuneration, credit, or subsidy as provided in the PPACA.

I appreciate the effort to find an appropriate way to protect our healthcare freedom and our private marketplace. However I believe that HB 91 does not get that accomplished no matter how some would like to characterize the interaction of HB 91 with the Healthcare Freedom Constitutional Amendment.

HB 3(Sears)

This is what the PPACA says about the role of a Navigator:

NAVIGATORS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—An Exchange shall establish a program under which it awards grants to entities described in paragraph (2) to carry out the duties described in paragraph (3).

(2) ELIGIBILITY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible to receive a grant under paragraph (1), an entity shall demonstrate to the Exchange involved that the entity has existing relationships, or could readily establish relationships, with employers and employees, consumers (including uninsured and underinsured consumers), or self-employed individuals likely to be qualified to enroll in a qualified health plan.

(B) TYPES.—Entities described in subparagraph (A) may include trade, industry, and professional associations, commercial fishing industry organizations, ranching and farming organizations, community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups, chambers of commerce, unions, small business development centers, other licensed insurance agents and brokers, and other entities that—

(i) are capable of carrying out the duties described in paragraph (3);
(ii) meet the standards described in paragraph (4); and
(iii) provide information consistent with the standards developed under paragraph (5).

(3) DUTIES.—An entity that serves as a navigator under a grant under this subsection shall—

(A) conduct public education activities to raise awareness of the availability of qualified health plans;
(B) distribute fair and impartial information concerning enrollment in qualified health plans, and the availability of premium tax credits under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and cost-sharing reductions under section 1402;
(C) facilitate enrollment in qualified health plans;
(D) provide referrals to any applicable office of health insurance consumer assistance or health insurance ombudsman established under section 2793 of the Public Health Service Act, or any other appropriate State agency or agencies, for any enrollee with a grievance, complaint, or question regarding their health plan, coverage, or a determination under such plan or coverage; and
(E) provide information in a manner that is culturally and linguistically appropriate to the needs of the population being served by the Exchange or Exchanges.

(4) STANDARDS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish standards for navigators under this subsection, including provisions to ensure that any private or public entity that is selected as a navigator is qualified, and licensed if appropriate, to engage in the navigator activities described in this subsection and to avoid conflicts of interest. Under such standards, a navigator shall not—

(i) be a health insurance issuer; or
(ii) receive any consideration directly or indirectly from any health insurance issuer in connection with the enrollment of any qualified individuals or employees of a qualified employer in a qualified health plan.

(5) FAIR AND IMPARTIAL INFORMATION AND SERVICES.—The Secretary, in collaboration with States, shall develop standards to ensure that information made available by navigators is fair, accurate, and impartial.

(6) FUNDING.—Grants under this subsection shall be made from the operational funds of the Exchange and not Federal funds received by the State to establish the Exchange.

(j) APPLICABILITY OF MENTAL HEALTH PARITY.—Section 2726 of the Public Health Service Act shall apply to qualified health plans in the same manner and to the same extent as such section applies to health insurance issuers and group health plans.

(k) CONFLICT.—An Exchange may not establish rules that conflict with or prevent the application of regulations promulgated by the Secretary under this subtitle.

I have attached my Sponsor Testimony. The House passed HB 3. SB 9 is the Senate companion bill which has also passed the on Senate floor.

Ms. Howe states in her article “So why would a Republican propose a bill that seeks to further regulate a government created job that will cost the state untold amount of money? It would appear that insurance brokers across the country are getting nervous about the prospect of competition from navigators and have been lobbying for stricter standards on them.”

First I would like to point out to Ms. Howe, and would have if she would have contacted me, that the State of Ohio is not offering a State Exchange. The State of Ohio is not hiring nor are we paying Navigators. A quick read of the law clearly states that: “(6) FUNDING.—Grants under this subsection shall be made from the operational funds of the Exchange and not Federal funds received by the State to establish the Exchange”. We are expecting hundreds of additional pages of Federal regulation soon regarding the role of the Navigator.

In Ohio, the Federal Government will be managing the Exchange and funding will come from the Exchange. Carriers that choose to sell on the Exchange will be charged a tax that will create the funding. Ms. Howe’s statement that “California is slated to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to hire 21,000 navigators” is consistent with the fact California is opting for a State run Exchange; Ohio is not!

Second, are brokers concerned about the impacts of the PPACA on their jobs? Of course; it would be illogical to suggest otherwise. They are joined by almost every other healthcare provider who has concerns regarding how this law will impact them and their ability to provide services.

Most importantly, the PPACA does not allow carriers to require that Navigators have E&O (Errors and Omission) coverage or liability insurance. This is coverage that carriers require from licensed insurance agents. I, along with others, felt it was important to require that Ohioans have basic protections when providing detailed personal information to Navigators. HB 3 requires training and educational requirements on such topics as ethics. HB 3 requires that they submit a disclosure regarding conflict of interest and that they complete criminal records checks (requirements that are consistent with licensed agents). I believe these are important protections to have in place before Ohioans allow Navigators into their homes and provide them with detailed personal and financial information. HB 3 requires that they are certified and registered with the Ohio Department of Insurance and their employer is listed. HB 3 allows the Ohio Department of Insurance to set fees and fines, revoke or non renew Navigators or Business Entity should they act improperly.

HB 3 also includes language that permits any insurer that is a qualified health plan under the PPACA to offer their plan through the Exchange.

I believe HB 3 is very consist with Ohio regulatory position as enforced through the Department of Insurance and would be very surprised if Ms. Howe truly felt comfortable with have Navigators work in the State of Ohio without any basic protections against bad acts. I can not imagine that she would feel it appropriate if the legislature allowed unregulated, potential felons into someone home to collect their personal financial and medical data.

Personal questions:

Yes, I am employed by an independent insurance agency and I’m thankful that they consider me a “resource”. It would be personally disappointing to be employed but someone as a nonresource. I have disclosed my position freely. I believe that it is important for our elected official to work under the rules and laws that they impose. I complete disclosures both for licensing and in my elected position that are filed with the Department and with the State.

It is surprising to believe that Ms. Howe would believe that we should work to serve Ohio and our district only on committees that we have little understanding of the issues. Clearly, if we are looking at insurance issues, someone with an insurance background would be helpful; as legal issues come up we look at our attorneys; additional it would make little sense to ask our urban legislators to be the legislative lead on our farming issues and our farming legislators to solve urban issues. Being knowledgeable and specializing in specific areas of study should be valued, even when parties disagree. I am thankful that I have a reputation for being more of a legislative policy “geek” than a party politics based legislator, although I have always been considered conservative.

Ms. Howe writes “the fact that she works at an insurance agency that will benefit from her bill seems a conflict of interest.” I would refer Ms. Howe again to HB 3 which states “(3) The superintendent shall not certify as a navigator, and shall revoke any existing navigator certification of, any individual, organization, or business entity that is receiving financial compensation, including monetary and in-kind compensation, gifts, or grants, on or after October 1, 2013, from an insurer offering a qualified health benefit plan through an exchange operating in this state.”

We very specifically drafted the bill to prevent someone from working as either a licensed insurance agent or a navigator and receiving a financial gain from both the exchange and qualified health benefit plans. Quite frankly, I ensured that I could not gain from HB 3. I suppose that I could quit my position as a licensed insurance agent and work as a navigator whose expected income will be between $10 and $14 dollar hourly rate, however I will suggest that is not likely.

Currently I serve the 47th House District which includes most of Western Lucas County and much of Fulton County. As a Representative I serve as the House Majority Floor Leader andserve on the Finance and Appropriations Committee, the Human Services SubCommittee, Health and Aging Committee and the Insurance Committee.

Maggie, I thank you for reaching out to me. I am happy to provide additional information regarding any of these topics and look forward to talking to you.

Rep. Sears, Obamacare and Ohio's Health Care Freedom Act

Over the past 24 hours, many of us in this area (and around the country, for that matter) have been informed about actions and comments made by Rep. Barbara Sears in a House committee during the discussion of the Health Care Freedom Act, the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) and the proposal to accept the Medicaid expansion in Ohio.

The FreedomWorks article, cross-posted on RedState.com, says:

In early March, Ohio State Representative Ron Young and Rep. Andy Thompson introduced a bill known as, “The Health Care Freedom Act,” (HCFA) that proposed a new line of defense against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or, Obamacare. The bill, when passed, will prohibit health insurance companies in Ohio from accepting any federal funding that would trigger penalties for employers or individuals who aren’t compliant with Obamacare. Wednesday, when the bill was brought up in committee, opposition arose; but not only from the expected side of the aisle. While the Democrats did balk at the bill, Republican Majority Floor Leader Barbara Sears also took issue with HCFA. One needn’t look too deep to understand why Sears wouldn’t want the HCFA to pass in Ohio. Not only has she received a substantial amount of financial contributions from the health care industry, she currently works at a health insurance provider and recently passed her own bill which helps implement Obamacare.

Rep. Sears is not quoted in the article, nor does it say if they tried to contact her to get a comment or response.

I've known Barbara for a long time - we've worked on each other's campaigns and supported each other over the years. So I emailed her and asked for her response. Here is her reply:

Thank you - I can respond however I'm in Columbus with a full calendar of budget meetings today and tomorrow.

It would be helpful if they would read or call...Thank you for your reach out.

Barbara

When she does respond, I will post it here.

Guest Column: New Programs a priority for BWC

Guest Column from State Rep. Barbara Sears:

New Programs a Priority for Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

As a long-time advocate for employee benefits, I am excited that the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation recently celebrated its 100th anniversary. The BWC has a long legacy of protecting Ohio workers and creating programs that speak to the best interest of both Ohio business owners and their employees. The BWC has been especially successful in its 100th year when it came to creating programs that protect and benefit Ohio workers.

One of the great programs created this past year by the BWC is the Destination: Excellence Program. This program aims to improve return-to-work rates by rewarding employers for building a risk management plan that focuses on safety, prevention, and returning injured employees back to their jobs more quickly. The plan offers seven program options to best fit the unique needs of employers and their businesses.

Another BWC program that seeks to keep employees healthy and productive is the new Wellness Grant Program. The Wellness Grant Program is a four year $4 million plan that awards companies up to $15,000 to create employee wellness initiatives. This program will help employers meet the challenges related to rising incidences of obesity and chronic disease, as well as an aging workforce. All of these factors contribute to workplace injuries and slow the recovery of injured workers.

Additionally, there is the Grow Ohio Program. This program speaks specifically to employers. It is designed to help boost economic development by creating options for new employers that can decrease their premiums by up to 53 percent. The Grow Ohio Program and similar efforts are crucial to creating an environment in Ohio in which businesses are able to thrive and expand.

Aside from program building, the BWC has made it a priority to cut down unnecessary spending through a series of efforts. The BWC has saved Ohio’s private employers $65 million in premiums by reducing the average base rates by four percent. Next, it has reduced Public Employer rates by five percent, thereby saving local governments $22 million a year. Lastly, the BWC has saved an additional $80 million by reducing its budget by 12 percent over the next two years.

The combination of creating excellent programs for Ohio’s workforce, alongside accomplishing major reductions in unnecessary spending, has fostered a healthier environment for the Ohio job market. It has been a remarkable year for the BWC, and I have no doubt that the momentum it has gained in its 100th year will continue into the future as we continue to serve the needs of Ohio’s workforce

Candidacies announced

Dave Kissinger called in to WSPD this morning to announce that he is a candidate. Unfortunately, I missed the office he is seeking and, in visiting his website, Citizens 4 Kissinger, I couldn't find it. (Note to new candidates: put the office you're seeking front and center on your website or at least list it in your bio!)

UPDATE: As of 9 p.m., Kissinger's Facebook page had been updated to show he is running for State Representative in District 46. However, the link to his website that is provided on the FB page comes up with a generic GoDaddy page.



I also heard that Toledo City Councilman George Sarantou is considering whether or not to seek the position of Lucas County Recorder. The incumbent, Jeanine Perry, is retiring.

Both Wood County Commissioner Tim Brown and current Rep. Barbara Sears have officially announced their candidacies for the Ohio House of Representatives; Brown for District 3 and Sears for District 47. Their press releases are below.

From Tim Brown:

This morning I announced my candidacy for State Representative and I want to share the exciting news with you.

Next year the citizens of Wood County will elect a new voice to represent us in Ohio’s Statehouse. In such a challenging economy, I believe it is critical that we find common ground for moving Ohio’s economy forward. Job creation and fiscal responsibility are hallmarks of my work as your County Commissioner and I look forward to taking that message and record of success to Wood County’s voters and ultimately to Ohio’s Statehouse.

I believe the experience you have allowed me in serving as your Commissioner will enable me to make a difference in Columbus and I hope you will agree. Over the years I have been blessed with a solid working relationship with our courthouse elected officials, as well as our local council members, mayors, township officials, and citizens who have been willing to make suggestions and be part of our efforts to keep our county a great place to live, work, obtain an education and raise a family.

Working as a team in Wood County we have been successful in fostering job growth for our citizens. During this difficult economy, the Wood County Hospital unveiled a 42 million dollar expansion which led to the hiring of additional healthcare professionals – further diversifying our economy. CSX opened its largest intermodal rail facility in America, a 175 million dollar investment in Wood County’s economy hiring over 200 workers. First Solar completed a 135 million dollar plant expansion and hired over 100 new employees. It has been my privilege to work with each of these businesses to create new jobs for our citizens. Priority one in Columbus will be to turn around Ohio’s economy, attract new jobs and keep the lid on expensive new government, and you deserve nothing less than an EXPERIENCED voice in Columbus leading the way.

Should you have any comments or suggestions for me throughout the year, I would very much welcome the opportunity to hear from you and to have your support. Following is my home telephone number and additional ways in which you can contact me.

With sincere best wishes for the approaching Holiday Season,


Tim W. Brown
CitizensforBrown.com – web site
TimBrownWoodCo – Twitter

From Barbara Sears:

MONCLOVA, Ohio—State Representative Barbara Sears (R-Monclova Twp.) today officially announced her candidacy for state representative of the 47th House District, which will include western Lucas County and portions of Fulton County.

“I would be honored and humbled to have the opportunity to return to Columbus during the 130th General Assembly and continue my work in the People’s House,” Sears said.

A small business owner and former member of Sylvania City Council, Sears has dedicated her efforts in Columbus to making Ohio’s government more conducive to job creation and economic growth. For example, she sponsored House Bill 10 to offer a refundable tax credit for the remediation of contaminated sites and the return of such sites to productive use. She also supported the creation of the Common Sense Initiative, a small business rule review procedure intended to examine all regulations to ensure that they do not strangle business’ success.

Additionally, following the passage of Obamacare in Washington, she sponsored the Healthcare Freedom Act in the House to preserve the freedom of Ohioans to choose their health care and health care coverage. Similar language in the amendment became State Issue 3 this past November, which was a constitutional amendment supported overwhelmingly by Ohioans that prohibits certain health care mandates in Ohio.

“We certainly have accomplished a lot during this first year of the General Assembly, but there is still much more to be done,” Sears said. “Serving as state representative has been both a challenge and a blessing, and I look forward to tackling our state’s tough issues and getting us back on the right track.”

-30-

Guest Column: Ohio’s Natural Resources Present Economic Opportunities

Guest post from State Rep. Barbara Sears:

Ohio’s Natural Resources Present Economic Opportunities

There has been a great deal of attention directed toward the development of Ohio’s natural gas and oil through a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” A recent editorial in the Toledo Blade expressed the need for caution and government oversight before pursuing these interests because a misstep in the fracking process can harm our environment and threaten public safety.

One of the most common concerns about fracking is the potential for chemicals used during the process to leak into neighboring water sources, including drinking water. Though certainly a legitimate concern, the facts of past drilling show that the possibility for groundwater contamination is extremely uncommon. In fact, according to the Ohio Engineers Association, since the early 1950s, more than 80,000 wells of varying depths have been drilled in Ohio using this process with no confirmed incidents of groundwater contamination.

Obviously, an adequate level of supervision and oversight is necessary in order to protect the environment and the lives of Ohio citizens. But where should this oversight come from? A distant, centralized authority in Washington? Or a more localized governing body that knows the unique attributes of the state’s land and people?

Just last year, the previous Ohio General Assembly passed one of the strictest laws in the country pertaining to oil, gas and shale development. This law enacted oversight on a wide range of issues and concerns dealing with the process, including hydraulic fracturing. Therefore, I think the claims that Ohio’s laws on this topic are too lenient are either disingenuous or absent of fact.

There is no question that Ohio’s primary concern is jobs. Our state’s economy has been struggling over the past few years, which has resulted in businesses, and subsequently large numbers of citizens, leaving our state to pursue greener economic pastures. The most prominent example proving this point is the fact that Ohio will be losing two members of Congress beginning in 2013 because of slowing population growth.

Our success at attracting business and investment in the state depends on our ability—and ultimately our willingness—to act upon economic opportunities when they present themselves. The development of Ohio’s natural resources has the potential to pump billions of dollars into our local economies and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Environmental concerns regarding this process are genuine and must be considered. But the technology required to extract these resources has an extensive track record of being safe and effective. Furthermore, the techniques in hydraulic fracturing are forever being improved.

In order for Ohio to once again be competitive with other states, we must prove to industries that we are willing to invest in economic opportunities and to show our citizens that we are willing to fight to keep them in the state.

Rep. Sears may be reached by calling (614) 466-1731, e-mailing District46@ohr.state.oh.us, or writing to State Rep. Barbara Sears, 77 South High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215

Guest Post: Updating Ohio's Electoral System

Guest Column from Rep. Barbara Sears on Ohio H.B. 194, the election reform bill. The bill, which was signed into law by Gov. John Kasich, is opposed by various groups, including the Ohio Democratic Party, unions and the liberal organization Progress Ohio. On Thursday, these groups submitted 318,000 signatures to the Secretary of State seeking a referendum on the law. If they meet the minimum number of required valid signatures, the issue will go to voters in November 2012.

Updating Ohio’s Electoral System

The right to vote is an important hallmark of American democracy, yet it is the simplicity of our electoral process that sets us apart from much of the world. Exercising our right to vote in federal, state, and local government is a freedom that we sometimes take for granted, but it is a freedom we must protect nonetheless. Suffrage movements and other spirited struggles throughout our history have improved our democracy while still maintaining the simplistic integrity of our elections. However, there have been attempts in recent years to change our electoral process which threatens the simplicity that has secured our elections for centuries.

The current electoral process in Ohio is outdated and subject to inefficiencies and vulnerable to voter fraud. The Ohio House passed comprehensive election reform legislation, House Bill 194, to fix these problems. Through these necessary adjustments we can ensure the efficacy and integrity of Ohio’s election procedures.

House Bill 194 improves the transparency and simplicity of the way we cast our ballots. It’s designed to modernize the elections process, streamline operations and reduce costs for local boards of elections, verify the accuracy of voter rolls, improve the verification process for valid provisional and absentee ballots, and set statewide standards to absentee voting. Streamlining the voting process will make elections more straightforward and decrease voter confusion, as well as ensure that procedures are uniform from county to county. It is very important to me as your state representative that everyone has an equal opportunity to make their mark on our government.

The legislation also institutes several technological updates to Ohio’s electoral system. For example, it authorizes the development of a top-down voter registration database. This update will identify poll worker error; increase the accuracy of the rolls, and keep times and locations for voting more consistent from place to place. Furthermore, the bill allows voters to change their address online, thereby making it easier for voters to keep their personal information accurate for Election Day.

This package of reforms will restore accountability to Ohio’s voting process. Our right to vote is a liberty that Americans have fought long and hard for, and I want to guarantee that all Ohioans have access to an electoral process that is fair, honest and effective. House Bill 194 will make sure that your voice is clearly heard in our state and local governments.