OKPOLICY.ORG
Steve Lewis served as Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 1989-1991. He currently practices law in Tulsa and represents clients at the Capitol. You can sign up on his website to receive the Capitol Updates newsletter by email.
Agencies are continuing to craft their FY-2016 budgets based on the legislative appropriations. Both those who believe there is waste in government and those who believe there’s a lack of adequate funding can point to examples. A case in point came up this week in the Oklahoma Healthcare Authority Board meeting during proposed rule changes to deal with its FY-2016 budget. OHCA got an increase over this year but not enough to cover the cost of current services for all of next year. So some programs were on the chopping block.
In the agenda for discussion and action was “A rule that establishes policy for the appropriate administration of urine drug screening and testing ***. The proposed rule change is projected to save $11,703,400 total dollars; state savings of $4,149,635.” It turns out there are two types of urine tests. One determines whether a particular substance is in the specimen. The other determines quantity of the substance present. The “whether” test costs between $15 and $84 while the “quantity” test costs between $500 and $800.
Apparently laboratory companies were marketing the tests in such a way that doctors thought the more expensive tests were “better” without realizing the difference in costs. Most of the time the physician doesn’t really need to know the quantity of the substance present, just whether it is there. There’s not much doubt that $11 million in unnecessary urine tests is pretty darn wasteful.
Probably if OHCA were not forced to dig deep for savings it would not have discovered the wasteful testing, at least as soon as it did. Chalk one up for the “waste in government” believers. On the other hand the OHCA agenda also consisted of, among other things, eliminating coverage for adult sleep disorder testing, removal of benign skin lesions for adults, and continuous airway pressure devices for prosthetics and orthotics for adults. These do not seem like “waste” for those who need the medical procedures or products previously covered. I don’t exactly know what a continuous airway pressure device is, but I’m pretty sure if I had to wear a prosthesis I’d want one. [Editor’s note: A continuous airway pressure device, commonly known as a CPAP machine, is used to treat breathing disorders such as sleep apnea.] “Cutting spending” can be both good and bad, but unfortunately when it’s compelled by merely cutting off the money those needing help have to take the bad with the good.
