ILNews

High court ruling opens Medicaid escape hatch for states

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

While upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday also opened an escape hatch for states that do not want to take on the project of expanding their Medicaid programs.

Whether Indiana decides to opt out of the expansion — which was projected to cover an extra 500,000 Hoosiers — remains to be seen. But the ruling will give states more leverage with the federal government to create favorable arrangements, noted Mike Grubbs, a health care attorney at Barnes & Thornburg LLP in Indianapolis.

“It changes the states’ bargaining position from ‘boot on neck’ to traditional bargaining,” Grubbs said. He added, “If they choose to expand Medicaid, they don’t have to do it through traditional Medicaid. I think it’ll give more flexibility to the states in how they propose to do that.”

For example, Grubbs said, the Obama administration might be more likely to approve Gov. Mitch Daniels’ proposal to expand Medicaid coverage by using his Healthy Indiana Plan, which creates health savings accounts for low-income Hoosiers. The Obama administration had delayed ruling on Daniels’ proposal, pending the Supreme Court decision.

Traditional Medicaid is a state-federal health insurance program for low-income citizens under which Indiana pays about 25 percent of the costs.

Daniels spoke out forcefully against the expansion when the law was being debated and just after it passed in March 2010. He issued a statement Thursday, saying the immediate implications for Hoosiers are a huge increase in health insurance rates – especially for young people – and the need to decide whether to try to construct an “exchange” or let the federal government do so.

“The Court’s ruling that the federal government has the constitutional power to do what it has done must be respected,” he said. “But many actions that are constitutional are still unwise. The now undisputed facts that this federal takeover of one-fifth of our economy will worsen deficits, increase the national debt, raise health care costs, and force Americans off insurance coverage they have chosen, still argues for repeal of a dangerously misguided law and its replacement by major reforms based on individual freedom and consumerism.”

But Daniels is on his way out of office and will be replaced by Republican Mike Pence or Democrat John Gregg in January. So the decision might ultimately fall to the winner of that contest.

The Medicaid expansion would raise eligibility for the program to people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty limit. Currently, adults in Indiana can only qualify for Medicaid coverage if their incomes are no more than 26 percent of the federal poverty level, although the income thresholds are higher for children and mothers with children.

Dr. David Orentlicher, a law professor and former state legislator, said he does not expect Indiana to opt out entirely from the Medicaid expansion.

“I think we’ll see few people opt out of the Medicaid expansion,” said Orentlicher, who is co-director of the Hall Center for Law and Health at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis. “The new Medicaid costs to the states really don’t kick in for a while. What they’re really worried about is the impact of the individual mandate on the Medicaid expansion.”

Orentlicher was referring to the likelihood that the health law’s requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance coverage — the individual mandate — would lead more Hoosiers who are currently eligible for the Medicaid program to sign up, thereby driving up the state of Indiana’s costs.

Indiana will have no new federal aid to help pay for such an occurrence. However, for Hoosiers that qualify for Medicaid under the new, higher income thresholds, the federal government will pay for all of their Medicaid coverage.

Still, an analysis of the law commissioned by the Daniels administration found that expanding Medicaid to 133 percent of the federal poverty limit could, by itself, cost the state an extra $95 million per year.

"This is going to be an immorally — and I choose that word carefully — immorally huge burden we're about to place on our children,” Daniels said in a speech to the Economic Club of Indiana shortly after the health care law passed.

Otherwise, the Supreme Court ruling left the rest of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in place by finding that the controversial individual mandate can be enforced under Congress’ powers to tax.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices in affirming that view. Roberts, however, also agreed with the four conservative justices who dissented from the ruling in their finding that the individual mandate could not be justified under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

Lawyers for the Obama administration had advanced both arguments in their defense of the law in March.

The ruling had wild effects on health care stocks. Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. saw its share price plunge nearly 8 percent right as the court starting reading decisions Thursday morning — but before the substance of the health care ruling was known.

The New York Stock Exchange halted trading of the health insurance giant’s shares until after the ruling, and WellPoint’s shares recovered some of their losses.

In a statement, WellPoint spokeswoman Kristin Binns said, “The road to implementing health care reform will be a challenge; however, we look forward to working constructively with policymakers and other key stakeholders to build a health care delivery system that provides security and affordability to all Americans.”

Some hospital stocks spiked on the news — since the law’s attempts to insure 30 million more people should bring them more paying customers.

The same will likely be the case for medical device and drug firms, such as Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co.

“Even with today’s decision, we expect that the debate about health care and health coverage will continue, and that further reforms and changes are likely in the years ahead,” Lilly CEO John Lechleiter said in a statement.

That’s largely because government budgets are already crimping payments to hospitals, drug companies and medical device firms. Belt-tightening by private employers is adding to the effect.

That is why many predicted that the trend of health care reform would have continued even if the Supreme Court had struck down the law. Thursday’s ruling just makes the coming changes a certainty, noted Ken Weixel, a senior advisor at the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions.

“It’s kind of, here we go,” Weixel said.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT