IBJNews

Court: Indiana can't deny welfare without reason

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The Indiana Supreme Court said Thursday that the state Family and Social Services Administration can't deny Medicaid, food stamps or welfare to people without first doing a better job of telling them why.

The unanimous ruling came in a four-year-old class action lawsuit that challenged the way the outsourcing of the state's welfare system dealt with clients. The system has since been modified, but a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which filed the lawsuit in 2008, said the problem persists.

In a 23-page opinion, the justices said FSSA violated applicants' due process rights when it sent them notices that stated their benefits were denied because they had failed to cooperate without citing a specific reason. The 2008 lawsuit argued that the FSSA sent notices denying or cutting off Medicaid, welfare or food stamps because of missing documents in clients' applications, but never told clients which documents were missing.

In one case, the agency cut off Medicaid to a woman with hearing problems and other disabilities after a telephone interview that she had trouble understanding and refused to meet with her in person. The justices said the agency's treatment of the woman violated federal law including the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The woman had wanted to talk with a caseworker, but the ruling said only that FSSA must accommodate her disability but wasn't obligated to provide a caseworker.

"I think a lot of those issues have likely been resolved by the fact that they did get away from the modernization effort and revamped their offices so there is a little more person-to-person contact," ACLU attorney Gavin Rose said.

The woman whose benefits were cut off sued on behalf of all people who applied for or received public benefits from the FSSA. Rose said that could be as many as a million people.

FSSA spokesman Neal Moore said the agency was reviewing the ruling and had no comment.

The modernization effort involving a team of private vendors began in 2007 and introduced call centers, the Internet and fax machines as means to apply for benefits. It took away specific state caseworkers assigned to each household. But Gov. Mitch Daniels canceled the contract with IBM, the main vendor, in 2009 following problems that included lost documents, lengthy hold times for its call centers and too many errors in processing of food stamps and Medicaid.

After Daniels fired IBM, FSSA took its place as the leader among several subcontractors in the automation project and has gradually introduced a new system, dubbing it "hybrid." The system adds more face-to-face caseworker interaction with clients during the welfare application process.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Privacy
    Not only does this system not work it also invades your privacy by including everyone in the household as a group. When your information is sent out everyone who has held that address or phone number information is included in the letter
  • people lie
    I know someone who applyed in two different states gets it lives with her husband so how do they beat the system,don't have to work for their food stamps,but other people do.i wish i was them so i could do the same thing
  • This wont help
    So I get to know in details why I was denied, sweet more failure!

    http://ebtcardbalance.com/
  • Typical
    The state and the gov and the legislature all have the same attitude. The people do not count. The safety net and middle class do not deserve services. The elimiation of the taxes on the rich will help the state prosper. I am sure IBM is laughing as the company sue us.
  • State Supreme Court Medicaid Ruling
    While Medicaid is no longer privatized, the state has opted for a system that forces callers to speak with whoever in the state answers the phone. Despite numerous errors, no one would give me the number of my local office. People on the phone were rude and condescending. Until I contacted my state senator, I could not get my questions answered. This new system is ridiculous.

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT