State smart to take longer look at insurance contract
Published 12:00 am Tuesday, April 6, 2004
Tribune editorial staff
Saving money is something we all want to do, but for the State of Ohio it is of utmost importance.
When officials from the Department of Administrative Services and members of the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association recommended that the state's insurance contract go to UnitedHealthcare in February, they apparently did so because the company claimed it could provide the state $28 million more in savings than Medical Mutual of Ohio. Medical Mutual, the company that has held the state's insurance contract for 17 years running, claimed the state did a poor analysis of its competitor's bid and the result would be, in their estimation, higher out-of-pocket expense for the state's 42,000 employees.
Late last week, the DAS rejected UnitedHealthcare's proposal to administer the state's health care plan and renegotiated a contract with Medical Mutual of Ohio, giving that company another year to run the program. The DAS will restart the bidding process to make sure the results are fair and accurate, according to Scott Johnson, the agency's director. We feel this was a smart move on the state's part.
While saving money is a good thing, doing so at the expense of the employees is not the way to do it. As medical costs continue to climb, it is imperative that people have access to insurance that does not leave the patient paying the brunt of the bills.
One could question Medical Mutual's motives. After all, the company stands to lose a major client. However, if United's proposal is as flawed as Medical Mutual claims, it would behoove the state to head the problem off before it happens.
If, after further evaluation, it is found United's proposal will save the state money and not place a burden on the employees, then they should be awarded the contract.
Even though Medical Mutual may have ulterior motives, if their estimations are correct, it appears the state made a hasty decision to save money.
We hope this serves as a reminder to state officials that rushing to judgement is not a good way to do business. Had they crossed all of their T's and dotted all of their I's to begin with, this may have never been an issue.