Barry County commissioners adopt resolution opposing state competitive procurement for prepaid inpatient health plans

The Barry County Board of Commissioners voted Aug. 12 to adopt Resolution 25-20 opposing the state's competitive procurement process for prepaid inpatient health plans (PIHPs).

Supporters of the resolution told the board the state's request for proposals (RFP) would reduce regional PIHPs and prioritize larger, often for-profit insurers, potentially eliminating local oversight and raising administrative costs. "The state has released the RFP for competitive bid of the PIHP system," said Richard (staff member). "What the state's plan is is to reduce that from 10 down to 3. ... Think of a larger corporate insurance company that's maybe not even housed here in Michigan that would be making decisions for people that live here. That's also our main concern."

The resolution, brought to the board with support from local community mental health leadership, objects to the RFP on several grounds. Commissioners and presenters said the existing regional PIHP structure includes local representation (counties appoint commissioners to CMH boards), operates under a much lower administrative rate (presenters estimated roughly 2 percent), and follows the Michigan mental health code. By contrast, presenters said large commercial bidders typically have administrative rates near 16 percent and that, if the procurement proceeds as written, an estimated $500,000,000 could be removed from the current system and redirected to administrative overhead.

Eric (staff member) said counties and CMHs had already passed similar resolutions and worried the change would remove local accountability and make it harder for local officials to influence services. "As counties we have felt like we're being taken away from the table, at a time when more and more mental health issues keep being put on our plate," Eric said.

Board members asked questions and then put the motion to a roll call. The vote was recorded as aye by Commissioners Smucker, Tunison, Carlton, Campbell and Hatfield; Commissioners Bassett and Jackson were absent. The motion carried and the resolution was adopted.

Commissioners and presenters characterized the action as an expression of county opposition to the state procurement approach; they did not claim the resolution would block the state RFP. Presenters and commissioners urged continued engagement with state officials and noted the matter remains subject to the state's procurement process and legal requirements.

Members of the public were not recorded as making motions on this item; the board recorded the vote and moved on to subsequent agenda items.