Obama team willing to ‘Republicanize’ Medicaid, but maybe not enough for Indiana

December 12, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two events this week showed that the Obama administration is willing to be flexible with Republican governors who want to expand insurance coverage to their low-income citizens, but don’t want to use the traditional Medicaid program to do it.

That’s good news for Hoosiers hoping to see some sort of Medicaid expansion in Indiana, where Gov. Mike Pence wants to use the Healthy Indiana Plan as a vehicle expanding eligibility for Medicaid to all Hoosiers making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty limit.

Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s secretary of health and human services, is on track to meet with Pence in Washington, D.C., in February to try to hammer out a deal.

Even more encouraging, in my mind, is the deal that Sebelius' agency offered to Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican. Branstad wants to use the additional Medicaid funding authorized by the Affordable Care Act to help low-income consumers buy private insurance. Most importantly, the feds OK’d Iowa’s plan to require Iowans to pay 2 percent of their incomes in the form of insurance premiums.

That’s critical for Pence’s plan, because the Healthy Indiana Plan also requires contributions to a health savings account of at least 2 percent of participants’ incomes.

“In a weird way, Obamacare could end up changing the Medicaid program not just by making it bigger—but by making it more Republican, too,” wrote Sarah Kliff at Wonkblog after the Iowa deal was announced.

I somewhat agree with Kliff’s thesis that the Obama team is willing to “Republicanize” Medicaid in order to convince more states to expand eligibility for the program—a key part of Obamacare’s overall strategy for reducing the number of uninsured Americans.

But here’s the catch. The Obama administration told Iowa it could only charge those premiums to citizens above the federal poverty limit. That's $11,490 for a single adult and $23,550 for a family of four.

Branstad wanted to require premiums for Iowans making as little as 50 percent of the federal poverty limit.

In case that point wasn’t clear enough to Pence, Sebelius wrote in a letter on Wednesday that the additional Medicaid funding is simply not available to any state program that requires people making less than the poverty limit to contribute toward their insurance benefits.

That increased federal funding could be significant. Whereas the federal government currently pays two-thirds of the cost for the Indiana Medicaid program, the Affordable Care Act would pay 100 percent of the cost of expanding it, for the first three years, and then taper down to 90 percent by 2020.

“While we welcome ideas from Indiana as the state continues to work toward expanding Medicaid coverage, the increased federal matching rate is not available for a waiver that has enrollment caps or premium contributions to health savings accounts for people below the poverty level that affect eligibility,” Sebelius wrote. “In our view, the inclusion of such elements does not meet the intent of the Affordable Care Act or further the objectives of the Medicaid program.”

Sebelius appears to be referring to the provisions in the Healthy Indiana Plan that not only require contirbutions from its participants, but will kcik them off the plan if they fail to pay for two consecutive months. In Iowa, the Branstad administration has expressed willingness not to revoke participants' insurance coverage if they fail to pay their premiums.

Also, Sebelius' comment contains a further objection to the Healthy Indiana Plan—the fact that enrollment is capped based on the available revenue generated by the cigarette tax that funds the program.

That cap has kept enrollment in HIP, as the program is called, at about 40,000, or only one-third the total it was projected to reach when the state Legislature created in 2007. Expenses in the program, while lower than in traditional Medicaid, have still been twice as high as projected at the program’s launch.

But the enrollment cap is a coveted feature of HIP for Pence and, perhaps even more so, for his fellow Republicans in the state Legislature. They note that the Medicaid program has ended up costing the state far more than predicted when it was first adopted in 1970.

They fear the expansion could overwhelm the state’s budget.

Pence and his team did agree to tweak elements of the enrollment restrictions in the one-year extension deal they signed with the Obama administration in August. But Pence has been adamant that some elements of cost-sharing must remain.

“However, in order to expand the Healthy Indiana Plan, it is essential that the State be able to maintain the consumer-driven model on which the program is predicated,” Pence wrote to Sebelius in a Nov. 15 letter.

Since, beginning next year, eligibility for HIP will be restricted to Hoosiers making less than the federal poverty limit, the issues Sebelius raised are directly relevant to whether the program continues or not. It is scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, 2014.

While I find the Iowa deal and the flexibility shown by both sides to be somewhat positive for the prospects of using HIP to expand Medicaid in Indiana, I still expect the February meeting to be a showdown of two very different philosophies on whether health care is a right and on the best way to fight poverty.

It’s anyone’s guess if either side blinks and, if so, who blinks first.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Bottom Line: Hoosiers Will Lose
    Great reporting by the IBJ on this topic -- not just this story, but in others about Obamacare. My reading of this is that it is unlikely that many more Hoosiers -- especially those in need -- will be added to the rolls. The feds have made it clear (as in Iowa) that they will not bend on the poverty requirements. Hence, the HIP program will not see the numbers that would a) help Hoosiers, and b) boost the economy by adding billions of dollars of economic activity. Sidebar to Idealogue Gov Pence: do you think there's a relationship with declining state revenues and your refusal to go along with the Medicaid expansion (as many other GOP Gov's are doing?
  • Sebelius Letter?
    Can you provide a link to the letter that Secretary Sebelius wrote to Governor Pence? I can't find it anywhere online.
    • To Jonathan G
      Here is the link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxAQNiUoSgyalI5NjBMVjRaX2s/edit?usp=sharing. I also added it my post above.
      • Thanks for posting the letter!
        I had read several articles about it but no one had the source material. Here's hoping that Indiana is able to reach an "Iowa Compromise" with Secretary Sebelius and HHS.
      • Consumer-Driven Drivel
        I want to throw up every time I see the reference to the HIP being consumer-driven, particularly given the circumstances under which HIP is administered. This is another one of Pence's code words to his supporters who are either ignorant of how the health insurance market works and/or playing along with this false assertion. Otherwise JK, thanks for keeping us informed.
      • Sebilius Letter Will Not Load
        JK - I have tried several times but the Sebelius letter will not load.
        • To Jim F.
          I'm sorry this isn't working. It's working for me. If you would like, you can send me an e-mail at jwall@ibj.com. Then I will attach the Sebelius letter in a response to you.

        Post a comment to this blog

        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 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
        ADVERTISEMENT
        1. "bike lanes, specialized lighting, decorative signage, public art, grass medians, trees and rain gardens" These are all nice things to have, but can we freaking get the hundreds of potholes all over the city fixed first?!?!?!!?!?!

        2. When a criminal with multiple prior convictions serves five days of a one year sentence and later kills a police officer with a weapon illegally in his posession, residents of Boone County need to pay a tax to drive to work... PERFECT Progressive logic.. If, on the other hand, a fund were to be set up to build more prisons and hire more guards to keep the known criminals off the streets, I'd be the first to contribute.

        3. Not a word about how much the taxpayers will be ripped off on this deal. Crime spirals out of control and the the social problems that cause it go unheeded by an administration that does not give a rats behind about the welfare of our citizens. There is no money for police or plowing snow (remember last winter) or or or or, but spend on a sports complex, and the cash flows out of the taxpayers pockets. This city is SICK

        4. Sounds like a competitor just wanted to cause a problem. I would think as long as they are not "selling" the alcohol to the residents it is no different than if I serve wine to dinner guests. With all the violent crime happening I would think they should turn their attention to real criminals. Let these older residents enjoy what pleasures they can. Then again those boozed up residents may pose a danger to society.

        5. Where did the money go from the 2007 Income tax increase for public safety that the Mayor used to stir opposition and win the election and then failed to repeal (although he promised he would when he was running for election)? Where did the money go from the water utility sale? Where did the money go from the parking meter deal? Why does the money have all these funds for TIF deals and redevelopment of Mass avenue, and subsidy for luxury high rises, parking garages in Broad Ripple, and granola chain grocery stores but can not find the money to take care of public safety. Commuters shouldn't have to pay the tax of failed leadership in Marion County by leaders that commuters have no say in electing. Taxation without representation.

        ADVERTISEMENT