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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT