When Kansas turned its Medicaid health care program over to private contractors, proponents emphasized that an inspector general would be hired to make sure the new system was meeting the state’s needs.

An inspector general was hired and then another, but the position now has been vacant for more than a year, and, last week, the Kansas Senate decided the state didn’t need an inspector general after all and approved a measure that would eliminate the position.

According to news reports, the initial legislation sought to make the job an unclassified position instead of a classified position because officials of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment said that would allow them to offer a higher salary and attract more qualified candidates for the job. However, the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee decided to go a different route. Some members didn’t want to make the job unclassified because those workers serve at the pleasure of the governor and could be fired for political reasons. Others simply thought the job wasn’t necessary. Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook, R-Shawnee, said she believed the new Kansas Eligibility Enforcement System computer program would alleviate some of the purpose of the inspector general by preventing Medicaid fraud.

What Pilcher-Cook seems to miss is that a primary duty of the inspector general is to keep an eye on the contractors to make sure they are providing acceptable service. Lawrence Memorial Hospital is just one of the Kansas health facilities complaining about difficulties receiving payments from KanCare contractors. People applying to get health insurance through KanCare are waiting for months to be accepted in the program, which recently was reported to have a backlog of about 10,000 applications.

Does this sound like a system that doesn’t need any supervision?

In addition, the three KanCare contractors — Amerigroup, Sunflower Health Plan and United Healthcare — reported a combine loss of $52 million in 2014. That’s better than the $116 million they lost in 2013, but this system doesn’t seem to be working well for contractors either. Will their attempts to increase their profits cause additional problems for KanCare recipients?

In light of the serious questions being raised, it makes no sense that state legislators would conclude that the one position charged with making sure this program is operating efficiently and meeting the needs of KanCare recipients is no longer needed. The Kansas House has not yet considered the plan to abolish the inspector general’s position. Hopefully, House members will come up with a strategy to fill this job rather than eliminate it.