Lawmakers should allow for more insurance choices

OR years, insurance reform advocates have called for legal changes that would lower prices and increase consumer selection. Yet one state lawmaker’s effort to pursue those goals in Oklahoma faced resistance and failed to advance.

Rep. Lewis Moore, R-Edmond, filed legislation to lift state insurance mandates, as well as another bill that would open the door for Oklahomans to buy insurance coverage across state lines.

Supporters of insurance mandates like to portray them as requirements imposed upon insurance companies. But it’s just as true to say those laws are mandates upon consumers. If you want to buy insurance, you have to buy coverage for certain services or do without.

Obamacare has rightly been criticized for imposing too many mandates on consumers, making coverage unaffordable for many. But Oklahoma law also imposes numerous mandates — more than two dozen. Moore wanted to allow insurers to sell policies that do not cover all those state-mandated benefits.

Opponents of Moore’s bill portrayed it in nearApocalyptic rhetoric, warning Oklahomans might buy policies that fail to cover certain expenses and wind up penniless after an unexpected medical situation arises.

That’s certainly possible. But assuming Obamacare’s individual mandate is repealed as expected, no one will be forcing or tricking Oklahomans into buying bare-bones policies. In fact, under Moore’s House Bill 1712, insurance companies would have been required to provide customers with a written notice informing them that a policy does not cover specific benefits previously mandated in law. The bill required, “The health benefit plan shall specify the health services that are included and shall specifically list the health services that will be limited or not covered.” Customers would have been required to sign a copy of that notice.

Also, there’s no reason to think insurance companies will no longer sell any policies that provide coverage for conditions covered by current mandates. The difference is that consumer preference, and not political dictates, will drive policy provisions.

While it would be nice if everyone could have robust insurance policies that provide substantive coverage for every conceivable medical malady, there’s a tradeoff involved. The more a policy covers, the more it costs. And at some point, the cost exceeds the likely benefit for many workers.

For some citizens, particularly those who are young with limited incomes, it makes financial sense to only carry a policy that will cover medical costs in the aftermath of a catastrophic event, like a car wreck. Furthermore, many Oklahomans already have insurance policies that are exempt from state mandates. Coverage provided by self-insured businesses does not have to comply with state mandates. More than one-in-five Oklahomans has coverage through a selffunded plan.

You don’t hear stories about droves of those Oklahomans winding up destitute from medical expenses, and the large employers that offer those plans are still considered attractive places to work.

Rather than have politicians tell citizens what coverage they must buy, all Oklahomans should be free to pursue the coverage that best fits their needs.