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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT