Is Marxism the Only Way to Save Rural Health Care?
While many conservatives would strongly disagree, some Oklahoma lawmakers seem to lean towards that idea.
Recently, the House and Senate approved HB 2048, known as the 340B Nondiscrimination Act. This legislation aims to solidify and broaden Obamacare Medicaid drug policies within Oklahoma, but Governor Kevin Stitt has vetoed it. Now, there are efforts among some legislators to override that veto, potentially pushing the bill through despite the governor’s stance.
The issue of drug pricing began to change way back in 1990, when Congress sought to reduce costs within the Medicaid welfare program. After seeing prices continue to climb, it made another attempt in 1992, passing the Public Health Service Act with a notable Section 340B. This section effectively transfers costs, creating what resembles a hidden tax that American citizens end up paying—whether through inflated drug prices or higher insurance premiums—to subsidize specific health care companies.
Before Obamacare, the influence of these programs was relatively limited. However, the expansion of Medicaid significantly increased participation, bringing the total to around a quarter of the U.S. population and boosting the 340B revenue by an astounding 374% from 2013 to 2021.
With the 340B program, health care corporations can purchase outpatient drugs at considerable discounts. Yet, there’s no requirement for them to share those savings with patients or their insurers. Instead, they frequently charge full price, pocketing those extra profits.
It’s important to note, there are no hidden benefits here. Someone has to cover the costs, and with 340B, that burden falls on everyday Americans, driving up the prices of drugs and insurance premiums. Politicians often appreciate the apparent success of these profit gains, all while branding it as “saving rural health care” in Oklahoma.
The contradiction lies in the fact that the biggest beneficiaries of the 340B program are the largest health care corporations, which often lead to market consolidation, ultimately making it harder for small communities to retain local healthcare providers. This situation shouldn’t be surprising to conservatives, who understand that businesses with ample legal and lobbying resources usually come out on top when the government meddles with market dynamics.
However, HB 2048 isn’t just a financial grab. It signifies an effort to further entwine red states in the Obamacare Medicaid framework, complicating any moves for reform.
As the Oklahoma Legislature seeks to enhance 340B, U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, R-La., is advocating for measures to uncover abuses within the program and emphasize patient-centered reforms. Meanwhile, Senator Markwayne Mullin from Oklahoma is also part of a 340B working group addressing these concerns.
Stitt made the right call by vetoing HB 2048, which would have further entrenched Obamacare and misguided healthcare policies in Oklahoma. There are much more effective ways—more transparent approaches—than dubious price controls to assist rural health care providers. It would be wise for state lawmakers to uphold the veto and turn their attention to market-driven solutions that genuinely benefit Oklahomans.
