ILNews

Medicaid expansion not dead but Legislature still divided

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When talking about expanding Medicaid under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, both sides of the aisle in the Statehouse focus on the same point – costs.

Talk of the health care program for low-income Hoosiers dominated separate press conferences by party leaders Wednesday. Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne, repeatedly emphasized his concerns over the potential cost to taxpayers while Senate Democratic Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, and House Democratic Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, raised questions about the expense associated with not expanding the program.

The debate over whether Indiana should grow its Medicaid program to conform with health care reform is certain to continue in the Statehouse. Senate Bill 551, authored by Sens. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, and Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, passed through the Senate on the final reading day and is now moving to the House of Representatives. In the House it is being sponsored by Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Tim Brown, R-Crawfordsville.

SB 551 seeks federal approval to expand Medicaid under Indiana’s own terms. Specifically the bill continues negotiations with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to allow the state to do its expansion through the Healthy Indiana Plan. It also directs the secretary of the Family and Social Services Administration to ask the federal government to provide Medicaid funding in the form of a block grant to give Indiana greater flexibility in administering the program.     

Under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, states that opt to expand their Medicaid programs to cover individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level will have the cost of the expansion covered by the federal government at 100 percent for three years starting in 2014. Then the ratio will gradually decline to a 90-10 split by 2020.

Long said the other state legislature leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, whom he has spoken with from around the country, share his skepticism that the federal government will end up shouldering 90 percent of the costs.

“You continue to see reports that the cost of this program going way above what the estimates were,” Long said. “How are you going to pay for that? I’ll tell you, they’re (the federal government) going to pass it along to the states is what they’re going to do. I believe that. That’s the federal system, pass it down to the states.”

Pelath countered not expanding Medicaid in a way that is already provided by the law is reckless.

“They only want to focus on the costs that they want to talk about,” he said of the opponents to the expansion. “They don’t want to talk about the cost of emergency room care, they don’t want to talk about the costs of people who don’t get the health care they need and end up getting sicker. The fact of the matter is that we have to provide health care in a better way because we can’t afford the system we have now.”

Long did not shut the door on any potential comprise but he still raised issues about doing an expansion under the Healthy Indiana Plan. The costs of working within the HIP framework are unknown, he said, and likely to be a significant expense to taxpayers.

“I do think the federal government will have to back off and allow the states some innovative ways to implement the expansion,” he said. “That’s what we ought to continue to wait for. If they do, they we’ll sit down and talk about it. But the cost factor right now, it’s scary and it should scare a lot of people.”


 
 

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