State extends high-risk pool because of Obamacare woes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State officials announced Thursday that they will extend Indiana’s high-risk insurance pool through the end of January to accommodate Hoosiers who have been unable to enroll in coverage through the federal marketplace.

The Indiana Comprehensive Health Insurance Association – often called ICHIA – provides coverage for roughly 6,800 individuals with significant medical needs. The program was scheduled to shut down at the end of the year.

“The state of Indiana will ensure that these Hoosiers, who are facing significant health care challenges, maintain their health coverage until the problems with the federal marketplace are resolved,” Gov. Mike Pence said in a prepared statement Thursday.  “While problems enrolling are an inconvenience to some, they could be a matter of life and death for these Hoosiers.”

Indiana Department of Insurance Commissioner Steve Robertson issued the order to extend the pool at Pence’s urging.

Robertson also sent a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking for assurance that the federal exchange – a marketplace for coverage through the Affordable Care Act – will be fully operational by Feb. 1 if not sooner.

State Rep. Ed Delaney of Indianapolis, one of the leading Democrats in the state’s health care debate, said Thursday that state officials made a good decision to extend the high-risk insurance pool. But he said a better choice would be for Indiana to be operating its own marketplace.

Pence and former Gov. Mitch Daniels announced last year that Indiana would not create its own exchange under the Affordable Care Act, leaving the job to federal officials. Thirty-five other states made similar decisions. The resulting federal system has been plagued with technological problems that left many Americans unable to sign up for insurance. Meanwhile, many states that developed their own systems have had thousands of people sign up.

“These circumstances again point out the need for us to work with the federal government in setting up an exchange operated by the state of Indiana,” Delaney said. “I think we could do a better job than Washington in using the machinery of the Affordable Care Act to help protect the lives of Hoosiers. The governor needs to reconsider his actions in refusing to have a state-run exchange.”

The state created its high-risk insurance pool in 1982 to provide health care options for seriously ill Hoosiers who did not have access to coverage in the private market. Its users tend to have significant health care problems including cancer, hemophilia, HIV/AIDS or organ failure.

Last spring, the General Assembly passed a law dissolving the program because the patients would become eligible to purchase coverage through the federal marketplace. But state officials are now worried those patients won’t be able to sign up in time.

Because the state supplements the cost of the insurance, it will spend $6.3 million to extend the coverage for one month.

State officials said that if problems with the federal marketplace continues, they will reconsider extending the coverage again.


  • Source of Funds
    Is the Governor using some of the $7.8 million the Daniels administration took from the feds to establish an Exchange to cover these costs? Just wondered because there's no mention of where the money is coming from and we all know that Pence isn't that generous when it comes to providing healthcare to those who need it. As soon as the Federal Exchange is operational (and it will be) the folks in the high risk pool will find much better and less expensive policies on the Exchange, so this "grand gesture" is hardly necessary and, in reality, is just theater.
  • Medicaid
    Yes, expand medicaid and I can go to the doctor for a finger cut that only requires a band aid. I do not have to worry about a $6500 or more deductible as my neighbor.
  • Politics? Yes, of course.
    Yes, it is 100% politics that led us to not set up our own exchange. This was a strategy, and why several states waited until the 11th hour to announce they wouldn't be starting an exchange of their own. Which was the point: Make the Feds run an exchange for half the states so that prices are higher and technical challenges more pronounced. It isn't a surprise that states which embraced the concept of an exchange have ones that function better than the one imposed externally--it's too bad the states that chose not to were so wrapped up in the politics of "making Obama fail." Of course, since he's President, these people were (and are) cheering for the United States to fail. Which isn't super-patriotic, IMO.
  • Politics as usual?
    From everything I've read, the states that set up their own Obamacare exchanges are faring much better. Their sites are easier to sign up for, and rates are much cheaper with the Federal subsidies. Is our Governor playing Politics?
    • Expand Medicaid!
      They need to expand Medicaid as well, as was planned by the ACA. There is no reason to not do that, since millions of working Hoosiers do not get paid enough through their low-paying jobs to afford to buy it from private insurance companies.

      Post a comment to this story

      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 IBJ 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

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

      2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

      3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

      4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

      5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.