Feeds:
Posts
Comments

At least one of the three companies that submitted proposals to replace the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) as a third party administrator (TPA) for OGB’s preferred provider organization (PPO) has done what the Louisiana Civil Service Commission lacked the courage to do: ask tough questions about the selection process.

In fact, United Healthcare on Friday filed a formal protest over the awarding of the three-year, billion dollar contract to Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBS).

Reports received by LouisianaVoice indicate there was only a 20-point differential between BCBS and United in the scoring and that BCBS did not have the best score in certain important segments of the overall proposal, namely for the score on claims processing, an area in which one source said BCBS was actually the highest of the three companies.

The Civil Service Commission on Wednesday voted 3-2 in favor of approving the BCBS contract that will result in 121 OGB employees losing their jobs. The approval came after scant testimony supported by an eight-page Power Point presentation by the Division of Administration (DOA) and after allowing opponents less than 20 minutes in which to state their opposition.

Word leaked out immediately following the commission meeting that there had been heated discussion among commission members prior to their entering the aptly-named Louisiana Purchase Room for the meeting—in apparent violation of the state’s open meeting law.

It was also clear from the tone of commission members’ questions, mostly soft balls lobbed at DOA and OGB officials. Conversely, attorney J. Arthur Smith, representing about 100 OGB employees was allowed 15 minutes to present the opposition’s side as commission members appeared to pay scant attention and offer no follow up questions.

When Smith later attempted to correct what he said was incorrect information provided by DOA, commission Chairman David Duplantier rudely stopped him, saying, “This is not a public debate. This proposal was received by the commission in April and you submitted a three-inch thick set of documentation to us on Monday.”

Jindal has benefitted financially from BCBS and its parent company, Louisiana Health & Indemnity. The two combined to funnel $56,000 to Jindal’s political campaign and BCBS gave an additional $100,000 to the Supriya Jindal Foundation, a charity run by Jindal’s wife.

Jindal has been attempting to privatize OGB for more than a year now and is currently on his third agency director since initial efforts to privatize OGB.

Tommy Teague was fired on April 15, 2011, after failing to demonstrate sufficient enthusiasm for the privatization plan.

Teague had taken the agency from a deficit of about $60 million to a $500 million surplus in just over five years.

His successor, Scott Kipper, lasted only six weeks after testifying before a legislative committee that were it left for him to decide, he would not lay off any of the OGB employees. His remarks were made only minutes after his boss, Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater had insisted that OGB needed to be downsized by 149 positions.

Rainwater visibly winced at Kipper’s comment and his departure was announced soon thereafter.

It was not immediately clear if United Healthcare, if its protest is denied, would file a lawsuit over the selection of BCBS.

Humana was the other company that submitted a proposal for the PPO takeover.

Two years ago, when BCBS was selected as the TPA of the HMO program for state employees, Humana and United Healthcare filed suit and the court ordered the state to re-bid the proposal.

Shane is no doubt one of the all-time quentessential western movies.

Starring Alan Ladd, Van Heflin, Jean Arthur, Brandon DeWilde and Jack Palance, the flick has stood the test of time and has been remade in various shapes, forms and titles by such Hollywood legends as John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart and Clint Eastwood. Perhaps the closest any movie has come to capturing its true appeal is one that came along half-a-century later—2003’s Open Range, starring Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner and Annette Bening.

Even the most casual movie-goer knows the storyline: mild-mannered stranger rides into town—not looking for trouble but invariably finding it in the person of the villain, a ruthless land baron/cattle rancher/banker. Said land baron/cattle rancher/banker has brought in hired guns from out of town to maintain tight control over the local populace, usually personified as honest but helpless homesteaders who only wish to care for their families by trying to scratch a living out of mother earth.

The hired gun, of course, is obligated to ridicule or otherwise demean the weakest among the local homesteaders who, upon attempting to defend himself, is summarily gunned down as an example to the others.

The lesson, of course, is to toe the line or be eliminated in like fashion. This heavy-handed tactic, of course, helps to consolidate the power and control of the land baron/cattle rancher/banker.

Now fast forward to a certain southern state in the years 2008-2012:

A new land baron/cattle rancher/banker has appeared on the scene in the form of an egomaniacal governor who fancies bigger and better things for himself—perhaps even thinking of himself as presidential timber.

But he doesn’t leave anything to chance by bringing in a single hired gun; he hires an entire posse. He surrounds himself with subordinate hangers-on who feed his presidential aspirations like any loyal sycophant, while at the same time cautioning him to keep saying he has the job he wants over and over ad nauseam.

These toadies, or hired guns, if you will, are mostly from out of town, much like the hired guns in Shane and its many clones. They don’t wear guns any more, of course, but the threat they hold over the homesteaders, in this case state employees, is their livelihoods—their jobs.

• If you’re head of the state’s highway safety program and you oppose the governor’s attempt to repeal the state motorcycle helmet law? Gone.

• If you are criticized for the way in which shelter conditions are administered following a hurricane? Goodbye.

• If you are a member of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and you don’t agree 100 percent with the governor’s education program? So long.

• If you are a state employee who testifies against his plan to streamline government? You’re history.

• If you are a legislator who happens not to agree with his royal decree? Kiss your committee chairmanship goodbye.

• If you are president of a university who disagrees with cuts to higher education? Take a hike.

By the same token, if you are a recently out-of-work politician who was smart enough to align yourself with the governor, not to worry: you have a nice state job waiting for you at a six-figure salary.

These hired guns, with names like Plotkin, Palmieri, Greenstein, Steckel, Vallas, Levine, Zachery Jiwa (DHH chief technology officer), and John White, each brought in from places like Seattle, Chicago, New Jersey, New York, Alabama and Florida, roam the corridors of state government, making certain that no dissention will be tolerated from lowly state employees. They are to keep their heads down and noses clean if they like their jobs.

If a few naïve state employees, namely teachers, do show up to testify before a legislative committee, there is always a friendly legislator who will insist that they reveal not only their name and agency, but whether or not they took annual or sick leave to attend the committee hearing, or if they are on their own time.

If a few state employees wish to participate in a rally against closure of or cutbacks to their agency, there is always an agency head who can be coerced into telling the employees—illegally—that they are not allowed to participate in said rally.

Then, of course, the governor can always call on more than 200 campaign contributors who coughed up more than $784,000 to his 2007 election campaign and appoint them to plum positions on important boards and commissions. And in case anyone tries to pass a bill requiring him to divulge that information, he can always call on compliant legislators to kill the bill.

Finally, to maintain an unyielding grip on his political power, this governor must not allow any federal encroachment, such as helpful federal grants, to tarnish his own stellar reputation. Thus:

• Grants to bring broadband internet to rural parishes must be stymied in the name of private enterprise;

• Grants to build a high speed rail system between Baton Rouge and New Orleans must be discouraged because of accompanying maintenance costs;

• Grants for early childhood development must be rejected because of federal oversight. Besides, let the little darlings attend one of the voucher schools where they teach that the Loch Ness monster really exists and that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That’s all the early childhood development they could possibly need.

This land baron/cattle rancher/banker is so confident of his unchallenged power that he now feels it is not even necessary that he remain in the town much. Instead, he chooses to hop scotch all over the country auditioning for bigger and better things.

The little town is simply holding him back so he spends all this time away from his office even though the town back home is drying up; education and health care are undergoing drastic cuts because he has given all the money needed to support them to his corporate friends in the form of tax incentives.

But why settle for being a local land/baron/cattle rancher/banker dominating a comparatively small spread when there is an entire nation out there over which he can hold sway?

Normally, in a situation such as this, we would summon the Lone Ranger. But not this time: one masked man is more than enough.

But we can almost hear the last line of that great old movie: “Shane! Come back! We need you!”

The best chance for Congress to at least partially mask the stench of Citizens United fell 11 votes short in the U.S. Senate last month, thanks in part to Louisiana’s two senators.

The vote for the Disclose Act, which would have forced independent groups to disclose the names of contributors who give more than $10,000 to them for use in political campaigns, died when it failed to receive the 60 votes needed for passage.

The vote was 51 to 44 in favor of passage.

As might be expected, Sen. David Vitter sided with the Republican opponents in voting against the measure that would have forced unlimited secret campaign spending out into the open.

What might not have been expected was that Sen. Mary Landrieu took a walk.

Just as puzzling was Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), who co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law in 2002, but voted against the Disclose Act.

Arkansas its votes between its two senators with Mark Pryor voting yes and John Boozman voting no but both Alabama senators, Jefferson Sessions and Richard Shelby, voted no. William Cochran of Mississippi voted against the measure.

Besides Landrieu, others who did not vote on the bill included Dean Heller of Nevada, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Roger Wicker of Mississippi. With the exception of Landrieu, all those not voting are Republicans. Kirk is out on extended medical leave after suffering a stroke last January.

Vitter could be expected to be protective of his source of campaign contributions, thus the motivation for his vote against the bill.

Since 1999, OpenSecrets.org reports that Vitter has received the following amounts from these sources:

• Health professionals: $1.67 million ($241,433 from political action committees);

• Attorneys and law firms: $1.1 million ($217,776 from PACs);

• Oil and gas: $1.03 million ($337,450 from PACs);

• Real estate: $853,886 ($90,000 from PACs);

• Securities and investment: $841,581 ($101,000 from PACs).

Individual contributions to Vitter since 1999, according to OpenSecrets.org, not surprisingly show that he shares three large contributors with Gov. Piyush Jindal:

• Edison Chouest: $230,654;

• Jones Walker Law Firm: $304,190;

• Adams and Reese Law Firm: $237,100.

Vitter also received individual contributions from:

• Koch Industries: $40,500;

• National Rifle Association: $237,100.

In all, Vitter received $24.54 million in campaign contributions since 1999. That included $17.9 million, about $12 million of which was in the form of large individual contributions. He also received $4.96 million in PAC contributions, records show.

Landrieu, it seems, is just as beholden to certain special interests.

The record of her campaign contributions go back a full decade further than Vitter because she has served longer. Since 1989, she has received $26.38 million. Some of her major contributors include:

Attorneys and law firms: $3.22 million ($448,420 from PACs);

• Oil and gas: $1 million ($479,205 from PACs);

• Real estate: $821,000 ($121,300 from PACs);

• Lobbyists: $865,656 ($43,108 from PACs);

• Leadership PACs: $669,000.

Landrieu also received individual contributions totaling:

• $288,854 from Entergy ($147,324 in PAC contributions);

• $80,699 from the Shaw Group (43,499 in PAC money);

• $88,598 from J.P. Morgan Chase ($39,498 in PAC contributions).

Like Vitter, Landrieu received the bulk of her contributions ($15.9 million) from individuals but again like Vitter, about 65 percent of those were large individual contributions, meaning that high rollers tend to pose more of an influence than the $50 individual donations. Almost $8 million of her funds came from PACs. That’s about 60 percent more than Vitter.

So it would appear that some elected officials, regardless of party affiliation, are a tad sensitive to letting voters know the sources of their campaign contributions.

As difficult as it is to admit, at least Vitter showed the courage of his convictions, however misplaced his values are, but voting against the Disclose Act.

Landrieu should be as forthright.

“Wisdom should be left to the political arena and not to us.”

–State Civil Service Commission member John McClure, during discussion of proposal by the Division of Administration to approve a contract for Blue Cross/Blue Shield to take over functions of the Office of Group Benefits which will result in 121 state employees losing their jobs. (We’re still not entirely sure what he meant, but leaving wisdom “to the political arena” is truly frightening.)

Anyone who didn’t think the fix was in before the meeting ever convened had only to attend Wednesday’s meeting of the State Civil Service Board to realize that the outsourcing of the Office of Group Benefits was a done deal and the meeting itself a mere formality.

Anyone who thinks the Department of Civil Service has not become a toothless tiger had only to observe the manner in which the commission rolled over and let the governor’s proxy, i.e. Division of Administration (DOA) rub its tummy until the docile feline was once again asleep.

Oh, sure, the vote was close, 3-2, with members Curtis Fremin and Sidney Tobias voting no on the proposal by Gov. Piyush Jindal to issue a contract to Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BCBS) which will eliminate 177 positions, 121 of which are actually filled. Voting in favor of validating BCBS’s campaign donations to Jindal and his wife’s foundation were Commission Chairman David Duplantier, John McClure, and Scott Hughes.

Absent and not voting were commissioners Lee Griffin and Kenneth Polite.

Fremin and Tobias apparently were less than enamored by the smooth talking mouthpieces for Piyush as reports filtered out of the meeting that there had been considerable disagreement among commission members in the hours leading up to the meeting.

If those discussions prior to the regular meeting involved a full quorum (four members), then it would have constituted a violation of the state’s open meeting laws.

But that’s no big deal; the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education has already set the precedent for ignoring that pesky little law that is of little or no consequence to this administration.

Accountable? Transparent? Open?

What a crock.

The commission majority on Wednesday apparently overlooked the Civil Service Department’s mission which is “to provide human resource services and programs that enable state government to attract, develop and retain a productive and diverse workforce that excels in delivering quality services to the citizens of Louisiana.” (emphasis ours.)

DOA and OGB officials were given time to explain in detail their reasons for wanting to outsource the Preferred Provider Organization which has accrued a $500 million surplus over the past six years but attorney J. Arthur Smith, who represented about 100 employees, was cut off in the middle of his presentation.

When Smith later attempted to respond to what he said was incorrect information provided by DOA, he was cut off sharply by Duplantier who snapped, “This was submitted in April and we just receive a three-inch thick stack of paper from you on Monday. This is not a debate and you have had your time.”

While Smith did, in fact, submit a thick stack of supporting documentation, including reports by two political scientists, and several publications showing problems with privatizing governmental functions, DOA’s complete proposal was contained in an eight-pate Power Point presentation that did little to evidence any real financial advantage of turning over the PPO and other claim services to BCBS.

At one point in the proceedings Wednesday, commission member McClure uttered the most curious statement since then-Rep. M. J. “Mert” Smiley, Jr. inquired of a state official if there were some way in which she could forbid employees from leaving her agency.

In the middle of discussion about whether or not the commission would approve the layoff of the 121 employees, McClure said, “Wisdom should be left to the political arena and not to us.”

Perhaps indicative of the way in which state agency heads across the board have capitulated to Piyush was the casual manner in which Charles Calvi Jr., chief executive officer of OGB (the third CEO since the administration first floated the idea of privatization/outsourcing a little more than a year ago), spoke of his employees who will soon be on the street.

Sixty-two of the 121 are eligible for retirement, he said.

Oh, good. That makes everything okay with them.

As for the others, he told the commission that they could avail themselves of training assistance from the state or pursue jobs with Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

“It is our hope that they find work,” he said.

That sounds vaguely reminiscent of another agency head who, in announcing to his employees that they were being outsourced, smiled as he informed them, “I still have my job.”

What went unsaid, of course, was if agency heads want to continue at their jobs, there had best be no dissenting opinions voiced.