Chippewa County passes resolution opposing competitive procurement of PIHP functions
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
By resolution, the board urged state leaders to halt plans for competitive procurement of Prepaid Inpatient Health Plans, expressing concern privatization could disrupt local behavioral health services; the resolution passed with four Ayes and one recorded absence, though the minutes contain an inconsistency about the motion's sponsor.
The Chippewa County Board adopted Resolution No. 2025-14 on July 17 declaring opposition to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services' plan to competitively procure Prepaid Inpatient Health Plan (PIHP) functions that currently manage Medicaid specialty behavioral health services.
The resolution, as recorded, was offered by Commissioner Justin Knepper and supported by Commissioner James Traynor. The roll-call vote listed Commissioners Damon Lieurance, Scott Shackleton, James Traynor and Chairman Jim Martin as voting Aye and recorded Commissioner Justin Knepper as absent. The transcript therefore contains a discrepancy between the recorded sponsor and the attendance roll-call; the minutes do not resolve that inconsistency.
The text of the resolution argues the existing, publicly managed PIHP system provides local accountability and continuity of care and warns that competitive procurement could disrupt Community Mental Health Services Programs, providers and service recipients. It urges Governor Gretchen Whitmer, MDHHS and Michigan lawmakers to halt privatization efforts and to prioritize collaboration with counties, PIHPs and other stakeholders. The resolution further directs that, if procurement proceeds, only public organizations with documented experience managing Michigan's public behavioral health system be eligible to bid, and it calls for transmission of the resolution to the governor, MDHHS director and the Michigan Association of Counties.
What happens next: The county will transmit the resolution to state officials and MAC; any state action on procurement remains a separate, state-level process.