New York State Concurrence Page (2026)

INTRODUCING A PROJECT TO CLARIFY THE WORDING OF THE LWVUS PRIVATIZATION POSITION. The LWV of Port Washington-Manhasset (NY), along with the New York State and Vermont State Leagues, asks other state and local Leagues to support consideration of a Concurrence at the LWV National Convention 2026 that would update the current LWV National position of Privatization (2012). 

The Privatization Update is a shortened version of the Vermont Privatization position (2023); it uses language from the Vermont text but focuses on making four elements of the national position more EXPLICIT so state and local Leagues can advocate more effectively, confident that they are aligned with  national League  policy in addressing a distressing trend, that is, the increased siphoning of public funding (taxes) into corporate profits and away from critical services aimed “to preserve the common good, to protect national or local security or to meet the needs of the most vulnerable members of society.”

PLEASE HELP US! Here’s What, Why and How!

Table of Contents

Need to reach us? Use our “email hotline”: LWV.Update4Convention@gmail.com

Definitions

What is a concurrence? You can check what the League means by “Concurrence” at this Glossary adapted from the 2009 “League Basics”, or with our elaboration of the terms and how they affect our advocacy here.

Public Good; Private Good; Fiduciary Duty; Health Care Middlemen; Current De-Privatizing at the state level; private equity;

How to Help

You may recognize these principles from the 2024 grassroots Program Planning campaign and proposal for LWVUS to update its Privatization Position by ADDing provisions from the 2023 Vermont position to by Concurrence. “

More on WHY: Like the several local Leagues of Women Voters and the state League of New York who have adopted this update by concurrence, we believe that the national position on privatization is not sufficient to support the advocacy needed to protect our health care resources.  We see two major issues preventing us from achieving League priorities:

Further, the national position was created in 2012. Much has changed and much has been learned since then. So we felt the Vermont study (2024) of privatization and their new state position provided a better basis to supplement the national position. 

Questions motivating our study:

Note that, as with the LWVUS position on Privatization, the Vermont study group and the concurring NY Leagues had in mind that the principles governing privatization also applied in other domains, for example, privatized jails, private schools that used public money, and other.

Why concur with the New York position over the Vermont position

After months of study and a consensus meeting, the League of Women Voters of Vermont Board of Directors approved a new position embodying these responses to their study questions:

Vermont’s new state position allows them to not just educate but also advocate at the local and state levels. However, they state, “We still cannot adequately address the privatization of Medicare because it is a federal program, and advocacy at the national level requires a national position.” In addition, the current position is ambiguous on whether the League will support the current PNHP campaign to “Remove the (private) middlemen from Medicaid.” <link>

For this reason, and also to allow League members across the country to benefit from the work of our study, New York has streamlined the Vermont position and is now proposing a more targeted update to the national privatization position by adding the language of their state position via concurrence, and we are asking for your help in proposing it.

Proposed Concurrence Statement (and Current LWVUS Position)

Videos to help you and your League get our new privatization position on the Convention agenda.

June 5 Pre-Convention “CAUCUS” Educational Session — video available here.

with Betty Keller, chair of the LWVVT Privatization Study Committee.

Link to it on HCR Interest Group YouTube Channel. Powerpoint with notes pdf here.

__________________________________________

Pros and Cons for the proposal submission (seeking your comments)

WHY: Learn More: Context and Studies

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. Why do we need an update to the position on privatization? Isn’t the LWVUS current position adequate? Go to Answer A1

Q2. Why does Vermont consider the topic of privatization is so important in health care? Go to Answer A2...

Q3. Do you propose that the Vermont update replace the LWVUS position? No. Read more…

Q4. Is the proposed update intended to add to the LWVUS Health Care position (under Social Policy)? or the Privatization position under “Representative Government? Go to Answer A4.

Q5. Is it your position that there should be no private options available at all? Go to Answer A5.

Q6. Without definitions, and descriptions of the process for taking control of currently and historically private health services, would we be inadvertently manipulated into supporting a move that was unintended? Go to Answer 6

Q7.  What are the criteria for “failing to deliver”? Go to Answer 7.

Seeking your comments – Pro or Con

We are open to your input–please. For example, the Pros and Cons document (linked above) still feels stilted to some members of the Update Committee; the “cons” especially do not feel authentic. So we are looking for people who do not agree with adopting the new position more broadly to send us their opinions.

Please use the linked webform for comments and suggestions, or send an email to the Update-email below.

Please contact us for Concurrence questions and comments: lwv.vt.update@gmail.com 

(Prepared by the LWV Health Care Interest Group on behalf of LWPWM)

Health Care Reform for the US