Finance and Revenue May update
The Finance and Revenue Committee of the UHPGB met May 6, 2025
Summary by Sandra Coyner, HCAO/HCAO-Action (SandraCoyner@hcao.org)
The committee received Kim Yee’s Euler diagram of relationships between the work of the committee and the consultants Milliman and ECONorthwest. While Milliman is serving four of the UHP Committees, ECONw is working only for F&R, this committee. It was possible (for the first time) for committee members to have significant input into what the scope of a consultant’s work would be. Discussion included
federal waivers (not in consultants' work; it is assigned to Ops committee and OHA)
Avoiding the kicker
Cost analysis discussion:
Who in the constellation of UHP is looking at this?
Previous work (and its flaws) –e.g. Rand, Task Force. Charlie Swanson’s work–will consultants duplicate or go beyond? If so, how?
Review progress on workplan. List of tasks. Checkmarks indicate various reports received, not decisions or proposals generated. Concern continues about:
ERISA
committee’s lack of progress discussing and deciding nature of tax structure.
Meeting reflections again included a great many mentions of concerns about specific issues still pending (or maybe not even pending).
John Santa posed several significant and complex issues related to administrative costs, including costs to providers, reporting systems, cost of collecting copays, marketing, malpractice insurance. When (if?) will these will be addressed in committee?
Richard Gibson requested a list be provided of what we want to know from experts. Will there be a panel of people to discuss administrative costs and potential savinge? (Answer: maybe not.) Jeanene suggested there could be a literature review, though Anya said not much exists and it is old. John suggested hearing from OWEB and PEBB
MaryLou Hennrich expressed strong agreement with John, Charlie, and Richard for having all of this info made available and developed.. Charlie and John said the amount of administrative savings could be quite substantial, beyond what Optumas (Task Force) calculated.
Richard urged everyone to look at Charlie’s interactive spreadsheet provided to the committee.
Public comment included a person who volunteered to help the committee with admin costs.
Richard and MaryLou reported on their experience at the Oregon Health Forum, where they were the only people who appeared to even know about the GB and its work for Universal Health Care. Objections they heard were “it’s too hard” and “there’s no appetite for that now” but UHC got applause. It was noted that the CECC committee (one of the four committees under the GB) has said flatly that it cannot do any public outreach except to the specific groups named in the legislation.
