Oklahoma State Legislative Committee   2008-2009 OKCAHU Legislative Committee:   Mike Brown, LUTCF (Chair)                        Don E. Hensley, CLU, ChFC, MSFS (Co-Chair) Michael O. Brown & Associates                  Centennial Marketing Group, Inc. 620 N. Robinson, Suite 201                           P.O. Box 20626 Oklahoma City, OK  73102                           Oklahoma City, OK  73156-0626 270.8030 michaelbrown@finsvcs.com          418.0400         don@cent-mark.com   Stan Alexander, CLU                                    Betty Doyle, CLU, LUTCF Alexander & Strunk, Inc.                              108 SE 3rd 10305 N. May Avenue                                  Suite A Oklahoma City, OK  73120                           Moore, OK  73160 751.8356 stan@strunkinsurance.com           793.0893         bettydoyle@coxinet.net   Jim Duncan                                                    Leah-Anne Janway Benchmark Financial Group, Inc.                 Berryhill Insurance Agency, Inc. 1900 N.W. Expressway, Suite 1200              211 N. Robinson, Suite 950 Oklahoma City, OK  73118                           Oklahoma City, OK  73102 840.0028 jdd@benchmarkfinancial.com       235.0036         leah-anne@berryhillins.com   Jimmy Johns                                                  Larry Rourke                                     Doublejay Insurance Benefits                       Coates & Rourke Agency, Inc. PO Box 57556                                                P.O. Box 460 Oklahoma City, OK  73157                           Mustang, OK  73064 942.3333 doublejay@icu.net                         376.4020         lrourke@cox.net                                                 Randy Schreier Schreier Financial PO Box 720656 Oklahoma City, OK  73172 720.0333 rschreier@cox.net                                                                     Date:                June 5, 2006   Re:                   FINAL REPORT - 2006 LEGISLATIVE SESSION     The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with an overview of the legislative activities for the 2006 legislative session.   There were over 2,400 bills filed this legislative session. Combined with the approximately 1,000 bills held over from the 2005 legislative session, Oklahoma lawmakers were left to address over 3,400 pieces of legislation in a 5 month period.   There were over 40 pieces of legislation addressing health insurance in some form or fashion. Also, several bills dealing with identity theft were introduced. While not paramount to the overall concerns of the health insurance agents of Oklahoma, it posed some concerns for the access of information necessary in completion of insurance applications.   Many of the health insurance bills filed were not heard by one body or the other, or both in some instances. Mostly, that was due to a difference in philosophy between the House and the Senate. In some cases, where the bills appeared to be viable, we approached the Committee Chairman for which the bills were assigned, or leadership in the respective bodies, or the bill's author, and expressed our concerns with the legislation. Often, this resulted in the legislation not being heard. Most of the legislation that fits within this category can be viewed in the tracking report. Thus, we will focus on the main issues addressed this session. Naturally, we will answer any questions that you or other members of your organization may have concerning any legislation of interest.       SB 1879   This legislation dealt with two issues; 1) state continuation; and 2) the funding mechanism of the state's high risk pool. Certainly, being controversial as they are with different elements of the insurance community, we wanted to insure that the legislation had a fair and open hearing where the issues were debated on merit and fact. Initially, Senator Rabon filed the request for the bill to be drafted while we conferred as to the appropriate Senate author. After lengthy discussion, we decided that Senator Adelson was the most appropriate author given that he served as our Senate author last year. We scheduled a personal visit with Senator Adelson to present the latest facts on both issues. After some discussion, Senator Adelson willingly agreed to serve as the Senate author knowing that some insurance carriers and the State Chamber of Commerce might be opposed.[1]   The legislation was assigned to Senator Cain's Senate Committee on Human Services. The legislation had not been scheduled for a hearing during the three weeks to hear Senate bills. It was the last week that Senate bills could be heard in committee that we paid a visit to Senator Cain. He stated, after we presented the facts, that he was supportive of the issue but he could not put it on the calendar because the Senate author did not formally request that the bill be heard. With that, we met with Senator Morgan, Senate President Pro-Tempore, to have the bill reassigned. He did and the bill was placed in the Senate Business and Labor Committee where we had Chairman Leftwich immediately schedule the bill for a hearing.   In the Senate committee hearing, Senator Myers asked about the impact that the proposed changes to the high risk pool funding would have on self insured companies noting that Conoco - one of the largest employers in his district - is self insured. He then asked if Senator Adelson would be willing to strike title. Senator Adelson responded that he would not as he wanted the bill to proceed through the process without having to re-consider it in the Senate later in the session. After some debate, the legislation passed from committee on a 7 to 2 vote.   Weeks later, the legislation was heard on the floor, where very little debate took place. Many spoke in support and the measure passed on a vote of 44 to 0 with 4 excused.   Upon being received by the House, the legislation was assigned to the House Insurance committee. The House author, Rep. Danny Morgan, Minority Leader, pushed to have the legislation heard. We met with Rep. Peterson on several occasions requesting to have the bill heard in committee, indicating that some of his own Republicans would like to hear the bill. While he agreed that the numbers presented by some carriers(s) and the State Chamber of Commerce were lacking in detail, he single handedly killed the legislation by not scheduling the legislation for a hearing.   SB 1748   This legislation was designed to protect consumers against identity theft. This legislation was not passed in the 2005 session, so the authors, Senator Bass and Rep. Ingmire, were more sensitive to the concerns brought forward by employers and other entities that readily access sensitive information for businesses purposes, such as banks, insurance companies, credit card companies and others. We worked readily with Senator Bass who was more accommodating than Rep. Ingmire, who at times was more sensitive to the arguments presented by consumer groups. Regardless, a compromise was reached which should allow for insurance agents to collect the information that is needed in order to apply for insurance coverage, renew coverage or verify any information related to insurance. Among the number of exceptions that we have  to the credit report freeze that is allowed by this measure is one found in  24 OS 155, Paragraph 9 that reads " Any person using the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance."  The bill passed.   HB 2842   This legislation was better known as the "Medicaid Reform Act". We do not believe that any other legislation was more scrutinized and vetted by every group or entity that is active in the health care issues at the state capitol. While the final product's ultimate impact will not be known for some time, there was an attempt during the preparation of the conference committee report[2] to include "any willing provider" language. The proponent of the inclusion of this language was the legislation's Senate author, Senator Adelson. According to the Senator, he pushed for the inclusion of the language to "get back" at some of the insurance carriers and medical groups who had worked adversely against him on "other issues". Rather than antagonize one our allies for this session, we informed other interests at the capitol of the language and let them work to keep it out of the bill. Successfully, the industry emerged from the conference committee without that language contained in the final product.   Summary   The session is characterized from the health insurance standpoint by the number of issues that remained in committee. Simply put, neither side politically or legislatively had a plan to address some of the state's pressing health insurance issues, primarily, the high number of those who are uninsured. Given that polls show health insurance as being one of the top five issues of voters, it is somewhat contradictory that nothing was really done. How that plays out in the voting booths this election remains to be seen. It is evident that there is no group advocating for changes to the present system to effect wholesale reform except the Oklahoma State Association of Health Underwriters. The Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, carriers and other association of insurance agents pushed legislation that would make changes to various laws in place presently, but those changes were not significant to bring about wholesale reform.   Advocating for such change does bring attention from others to the point that they may become adversarial, as many within the association have witnessed. While it lacks common sense from the standpoint of impacting public policy, it makes some political sense. Many are not for wholesale change as it defeats their overall objective - live to fight another day.  Certainly this short term strategy is keeping the entity going but what happens when this strategy conflicts with their members long term goal  - that being economic viability?   We do believe that the association needs to continue to fight for those ideals that bring benefit to its clients.  It is those clients who are greatly impacted by the change in the health insurance policy of Oklahoma and not the associations who claim to represent them.   [1] Although both were opposed to the legislation introduced in 2005, this version had some changes suggested by some carriers that had concerns with the 2005 version. Therefore we could not say with certainty that the State Chamber of Commerce or some insurance carriers were opposed to the legislation. [2] A conference committee represents a group of legislators picked by the House and Senate who are responsible for the final writing of legislation that has passed from both the House and Senate. Once written, it is signed out by the Conference Committee members where it has to be adopted by both bodies.