Estimate puts Indiana health overhaul costs at $3.1B

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana's human services chief and insurance commissioner warn in a letter posted online Wednesday that the federal health care overhaul will cost the state more than previously estimated and put stress on its outdated welfare eligibility system.

Family and Social Services Administration Secretary Anne Murphy and acting Insurance Commissioner Stephen Robertson sent Gov. Mitch Daniels a letter estimating the overhaul now will cost Indiana at least $3.16 billion over the next 10 years, and possibly as much as $3.81 billion. The new estimates are $235 million higher that a previous estimate in May.

Indiana Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson, D-Bloomington, challenged the accuracy of the new figures, saying they were among barriers to implementing the health care changes in Indiana that the Daniels administration has thrown up despite leaving office in 2013, before most of the changes take effect.

The letter dated Monday and posted Wednesday on a state website said Indiana still must find ways to pay for an array of new health care costs including larger Medicaid rolls and in-house administrative costs.

"We are also reviewing current State spending on health care programs to identify potential savings that could be redirected to pay for the $3.1-$3.8B costs that is mandated by the (overhaul)," the letter said.

It said Indiana might need to restructure its health care programs including Hoosier Healthwise for children and pregnant women and the Healthy Indiana Plan for uninsured low-income adults "to identify savings that may be used to support the State's new obligations" and to avoid duplicating federal programs.

The letter also warns that Murphy and Robertson are "gravely concerned" that FSSA's 17-year-old welfare benefits computer system might need to adsorb the additional volume of Medicaid processing for more than 500,000 new recipients and tax subsidies for as many as 1.4 million other people. FSSA has started planning for a new system to go in place in 2015.

Simpson, the Senate minority leader, said the letter underscored problems, rather than possibilities, from the health care overhaul, and threw up barriers to its implementation in Indiana.

"They're exaggerating the cost of implementation, and if that's not a barrier, I don't know what is," Simpson said.

The latest cost estimates includes $600 million to $832 million in higher Medicaid fees to doctors over seven years, but the federal government pays those costs for two years and it's not clear yet whether Indiana must pay the other years, she said.

Simpson said the latest estimate also includes $881 million in questionable costs to cover benefits to people who receive Social Security disability income.

Public health care advocate David Roos of Covering Kids and Families of Indiana said the Social Security problem has loomed over Indiana since 1972 and the Daniels administration tried to get a law passed two years ago to fix it.

"They are not new problems, and to blame them on the (overhaul) seems to me inappropriate," Roos said.

Simpson also complained that FSSA has not included legislative leaders in planning the health care changes.

"I just wish there was a more cooperative spirit and a more positive attitude on the part of the administration," Simpson said. "There's this whole issue of continuity that bothers me. This administration is gone in two years."

Copies of the letter were distributed at a meeting Tuesday where state officials heard from insurers on the health care overhaul. They will hold a meeting Thursday morning for business leaders and Friday morning for doctors and other providers. Both will be at the Statehouse.


  • Ignore the Mitch spin
    Sounds like its "pick me, pick me for President 2012" Mitch who is making up the numbers to suit his anti-health care reform narrative. The story specifically cites a 1972 problem Mitch hasn't fixed but is lumping into this to feed the negativity, not the facts.
  • Help save us Mitch
    Folks, Vi Simpson says we can't trust the numbers. She is right. Obama and his crew are not even sure. They are making them as they go. Obama Care Beware !!

    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. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

    2. Shouldn't this be a museum

    3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

    4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

    5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.