IBJNews

Budget leaders examine Healthy Indiana financing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Members of the State Budget Committee took a detailed look Friday at how Gov. Mike Pence would pay for "Healthy Indiana Plan 2.0," his proposal to expand insurance coverage using a state-run plan instead of traditional Medicaid.

Administration officials presented the proposal to the committee Friday. Pence is submitting the proposal to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services later this month, as part of the process of requesting a waiver to the Medicaid expansion in the federal health care overhaul.

State Medicaid Director Joe Moser said the cigarette tax and an increase in the recently approved hospital assessment fee would cover the expansion's cost. The plan would cost about $18 billion over the next six years. The state would pay $1.5 billion and the federal government would pay $16.5 billion.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, praised the proposal.

"I think this plan is much more beneficial to the patient and the customer" than traditional Medicaid, Kenley said. "I think there is a great opportunity. I hope the federal government will see fit to approve our waiver request the way it stands."

He added, half-joking, that he hopes Democratic state lawmakers will push Democrats in Washington to support the plan.

Pence unveiled the proposal last month with much fanfare, saying that expanding the state-run Healthy Indiana Plan was a better alternative to expanding traditional Medicaid.

The presentation Friday gives one of the first detailed looks at how the state would finance the expansion.

The total price tag of $18 billion covers the time from Jan. 1, 2015, the estimated start date of the program, through June 2020. In the first full year of the expansion, fiscal year 2016, the program would cost $2.9 billion. The state would pay in about $100 million while the federal government would cover $2.8 billion.

The state's hospitals, whose association which worked closely with the Pence administration in developing the plan, stand to be one of the biggest winners under the infusion of federal money to the state.

One of the largest changes the state would make, and perhaps the biggest driver of increased costs, is the plan's call to increase the Medicaid reimbursement rate. The figure accounts for how much hospitals and doctors are paid for seeing patients under the Medicaid program for the poor and it is calculated based on the better-paying Medicare rate under the program for senior citizens.

If the expansion were approved, the state's Medicaid reimbursement rate would jump from 60 percent of Medicare to 75 percent. The increase would address an argument long-touted by conservatives, who say Medicaid is a failure, in part, because doctors will not accepting patients they lose money treating.

Moser, the Medicaid director, told the panel that the number of Indiana residents insured through the program would steadily increase in the first few years from roughly 193,000 in the first year to roughly 458,000 by 2020.

"These folks won't all come in the door on day one," he said.

The Pence administration is continuing its rollout of the proposal with the pending departure of one of its health care leaders: Family and Social Services Administration Secretary Debra Minott. She announced Monday that she was "transitioning" out of the job in the coming month, but did not explain her reason for leaving.

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 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT