Here is the text of an email Melanie Kurdys sent to lawmakers today. She invites you to use the information herein for your own email letter to lawmakers.
I spoke with a number of you yesterday, Tuesday, about not approving any health exchanges in Michigan. The common theme among representatives was that a state run exchange would give us more control than leaving it to the Federal government. I believe this assumption is debatable, but let's assume it is true. Is the Added cost burden to the State of Michigan worth the budget strain for the additional control we retain?
No representative or legislative assistant I spoke to seemed confident that we have any idea how much the state run exchange might cost us. As you might expect, estimates vary significantly for the same reason we are having trouble making this decision.There are so many unknowns. So I found what appears to be among the most reasonable estimates based on Actual implementations where they exist and in comparison to other state estimates.
Please consider the impact of this cost to the state, especially in light of the fact that Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana have all decided not to implement state exchanges. Although they may not retain full flexibility for their citizens in terms of health care, they will not have the financial burden. This financial burden will impact our citizens and our businesses in terms of higher taxes (or health care costs), which, unless we reduce costs elsewhere, will negatively impact our progress toward creating a friendlier business environment.
This is a terribly difficult decision you have to make. Think of the other states and their decision. As of November 19, 19 states have declined state run exchanges, 17 have approved and 5 are considering the partnership idea, the balance (8) are yet undecided. Potentially more than half could end up declining to implementing state exchanges. The reference for this status information is here.