Vermont Concurrence Page (2024)

Need to reach us? Use our “email hotline”: lwv.vt.update@gmail.com

What LWV of Vermont has done, is doing
The current LWVUS privatization position
Proposed Concurrence Statement
Three Ways your League can Support this Concurrence
State and Local Leagues that Support this Concurrence
Pros/Cons of Proposed Concurrence
Why support the Concurrence – Learn More: Context and Studies
LWV VT Concurrence VIDEOS
Frequently Asked Questions FAQs

The League of Women Voters of Vermont (LWVVT) would like your League to support their request to have a discussion of their privatization position on the recommended agenda for the LWV National Convention in Washington, DC, this June. If in the discussion, the new provisions in the Vermont privatization position are received favorably, LWVVT further proposes that the delegates should vote whether to “concur” –to ADD provisions from the new Vermont position to “UPDATE the LWVUS position by Concurrence. “

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.

WHY: The League of Women Voters of Vermont believes 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:

The LWVUS position does not include health care as a public good, even though the LWVUS Meeting Basic Human Needs position includes health care as a basic human need for which government should bear the financial responsibility for those unable to afford it themselves,.
The LWVUS position includes clear criteria for choosing whether to privatize a public good, but the position did not address what should be done if a private entity providing a public good failed to meet those criteria.

Further, the national position was created in 2012. Much has changed and much has been learned since then. So we felt the need for a fresh study of privatization and, perhaps, a new state position to supplement the national position.

Questions motivating our study:

Is Health Care a Public Good? Is it a Private Good?
Can free market rules support equitable provision of health care to all residents?
If for-profit corporations and private equity firms do not deliver on promises to provide equivalent quality health care at lower cost than publicly-funded programs, is it reasonable to continue contracting with them?

Note that, as with the LWVUS position on Privatization, the Vermont study group 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.

What the LWV of Vermont has done, is doing

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:

Yes, Health Care fits several definitions of a Public Good.
No, free market rules do not support equitable provision of health care to all residents nor to all locations.
No, it is not reasonable to continue contracting with for-profit corporations and private equity firms who fail to fulfill the terms of their contracts for delivering universal health care. As it says in the LWVUS position, provision and process should be set out at the time of the contract for returning the assets to the public. However, the LWVUS position is not explicit as to what should happen when corporations do not deliver on the terms of their contracts.

Then, at a special convention, members voted unanimously to adopt the position.

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.”

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

Proposed Concurrence Statement (and Current LWVUS Position)

Vermont Concurrence Statement (footnote explains the tiny differences from the adopted position)
Current LWVUS Position on Privatization
Link to new Position on LWVVT website

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

New VIDEO (from 2/8/24) presentation for LWV-CO by Betty Keller, MD of LWVVT “What does LWV Vermont Want to Do?” Youtube link. Additional information (and time stamps identified) in the description field below the video.

New VIDEO (2/14/24)–5-minute clip walking you through the directions for filling out the Program Planning Survey. See the context for it at the “Critical Steps – How to Help” page.

State and Local Leagues that Support this Concurrence

As of 4/20 – 67

LWV Vermont
LWV Port Washington-Manhasset (NY)
LWV Amherst (MA)
LWV of the Cape Cod Area (MA)
LWV NW Maricopa County (AZ)
LWV Davis Area (CA)
LWV Kentucky
(See more…)

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

WHY: Learn More: Context and Studies

Green Mountain Citizen Newsletter Fall 2023 (abridged) (download pdf)
LWV4US Newsletter December 2023 (download pdf)
LWVUS Current Privatization Position (2022-2024) (download pdf)
CASE STUDY ON DE-PRIVATIZING — How Connecticut Used Sunlight to Overcome Black Box Costs, Denials, and Fraud, S. Toubman 2019 (Talking Points pdf), full transcript pdf), link )
- In 2012, Connecticut replaced managed care organizations (MCOs) in its Medicaid program with a program of “managed fee for service.” Enhanced care coordination for all Medicaid recipients became an important part of this program, which has reduced Medicaid spending and provided better service to patients.
Videos on Privatization of Health Care —
- LWV VT Privatization of Medicare — 2/6/23
- PNHP-NY Metro: How Private Equity Makes Us Sicker — 18 Oct 2022
- CNYH: If we ran fire departments like we run healthcare — 2022 — 2 minutes
- PNHP: Exposing the Profiteers Behind Medicare Reach — 2023
- Robert Reich: This One Thing Is Making Your Life More Expensive — 2023 — 5 minutes
- Dr. Glaucomflecken: The Future of Medicine — 2023 — 2.5 minutes

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 A6.

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