IBJNews

Healthy Indiana Plan expansion opposed by some

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana wants to use its public health savings account program for low-income adults to cover people who will become newly eligible for Medicaid under the federal health care law beginning in 2014, but federal officials haven't yet said whether they will allow the program to continue beyond next year.

State officials say they have pressed federal Medicaid officials for nearly a year to say whether the Healthy Indiana Plan, or HIP, can continue beyond the scheduled Dec. 31, 2012, expiration of a waiver that allows the state to divert Medicaid funds for the program.

"We've asked them for guidance, and we've really gotten no response," said Seema Verma, an Indiana Family and Social Services Administration consultant who helped design the Healthy Indiana Plan.

The administration now plans to ask the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services to approve an amended state plan that would allow the existing HIP program to cover Medicaid expansions required under the new federal law.

CMS spokeswoman Mary Kahn said the agency could not comment on the proposed amendment to Indiana's Medicaid plan until it's submitted. State officials say that could happen as early as the first week of April. CMS then has 60 days to respond.

Part of the state's dilemma is poor timing. HIP's Medicaid waiver expires a full year before the federal Medicaid expansion. But Indiana needs to make plans now for how it will enroll as many as 500,000 newly eligible recipients — whether it's in HIP, traditional Medicaid, or another program.

HIP currently provides about 45,000 enrollees up to $500 in free preventive care such as cancer screenings; a $1,100 medical savings account; and when medical costs exceed that, benefits of at least $300,000. Enrollees make monthly contributions based on their ability to pay, but many pay nothing at all because they earn too little.

Legislation pending in the General Assembly would require minimum monthly payments of $8.33 per month, or $100 annually.

A cost analysis by state actuary Milliman Inc. showed HIP would have to add some services not currently provided — including vision, dental and maternity benefits — to meet the requirements of the Medicaid expansion. The analysis shows the enhanced HIP would cost 44 percent more than traditional Medicaid, totaling $1.85 billion for 336,500 HIP enrollees during the first full year of the expansion.

Under the Medicaid expansion, the federal government pays all costs of the newly eligible enrollees for the first three years, while state shares grow incrementally to 10 percent by 2020.

Verma said HIP costs more in part because it pays doctors at higher rates so more participate. Also, HIP serves a population with more medical needs than the traditional Medicaid population.

Public health insurance advocate David Roos of Covering Kids and Families of Indiana said HIP enrollees also have pent-up medical needs after going for years without health insurance.

"Some very, very sick people are using the program. That's why it's so expensive," Roos said.

The Family and Social Services Administration said the program reduces costly emergency room visits and nearly 80 percent of enrollees take advantage of free preventive services.

While some conservatives and health care policy experts have praised HIP as an innovative state solution for the uninsured, others say the program would not work as a vehicle for the federal Medicaid expansion. The state plans to hold a public hearing on the proposal Wednesday at the Indiana Government Center South in Indianapolis.

Indianapolis attorney Fran Quigley, who has represented clients who have had trouble enrolling or staying enrolled in HIP, acknowledged the program provides a coverage option to low-income, uninsured adults. But he said it is no substitute for Medicaid, which he called more effective and affordable.

He said requiring enrollees to make even small contributions to their plans, as HIP does, violates the spirit and the letter of the federal health care overhaul law.

"If you charge poor families a premium for health coverage, it means some of the most struggling Hoosiers will go without health care," Quigley said.

Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in January asking that CMS not reject the state plan amendment over the required contributions.

"HIP was implemented with bi-partisan support in the Indiana General Assembly and reflects the values of our state," Daniels wrote. "Indiana prefers to promote this program that contains consumer-focused incentives for personal responsibility instead of a traditional Medicaid entitlement program."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Not true
    Hip is absolutely affordable and that lady you spoke to was wrong. The most you'd pay is $100 per month and that's for full coverage, no deductible, and prescriptions are free. Where else can you get that at a better price. Sheesh.
  • HIP is a joke
    For more than two years I tried to get my daughter enrolled in HIP because I lost my health insurance when I lost my job. When I checked to see how much it would cost for a buy-in, the woman I spoke to told me that honestly the plan is expensive and I could probably find the same or better coverage myself--pretty pathetic when the people who know the plan won't recommend it.

    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. Socialized medicine works great for white people in Scandanavia. It works well in Costa Rica for a population that is partly white and partly mestizo. I don't really see Obamacare as something aimed against whites. I think that is a Republican canard designed to elicit support from white people for republican candidates who don't care about them any more than democrats care about the non-whites they pander to with their phony maneuvers. But what is different between Costa Rica nd the Scandanavian nations on one hand and the US on the other? SIZE. Maybe the US is just too damn big. Maybe it just needs to be divided into smaller self governing pieces like when the old Holy Roman Empire was dismantled. Maybe we are always trying the same set of solutions for different kinds of people as if we were all the same. Oh-- I know-- that is liberal dogma, that we are all the same. Which is the most idiotic American notion going right back to the propaganda of 1776. All men are different and their differences are myriad and that which is different is not equal. The state which pretends men are all the same is going to force men to be the same. That is what America does here, that is what we do in our stupid overseas wars, that is how we destroy true diversity and true difference, and we are all as different groups of folks, feeling the pains of how capitalism is grinding us down into equally insignificant proletarian microconsumers with no other identity whether we like it or not. And the Marxists had this much right about the War of Independence: it was fundamentally a war of capitalist against feudal systems. America has been about big money since day one and whatever gets in the way is crushed. Health care is just another market and Obamacare, to the extent that it Rationalizes and makes more uniform a market which should actually be really different in nature and delivery from place to place-- well that will serve the interests of the biggest capitalist stakeholders in health care which is not Walmart for Gosh Sakes it is the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. CUI BONO Obamacare? The insurance industry. So republicans drop the delusion pro capitalist scales from your eyes this has almost nothing to do with race or "socialism" it has to do mostly with what the INSURANCE INDUSTRY wants to have happen in order to make their lives and profits easier.

    2. Read the article - the reason they can't justify staying is they have too many medicare/medicaid patients and the re-imbursements for transporting these patient is so low.

    3. I would not vote for Bayh if he did run. I also wouldn't vote for Pence. My guess is that Bayh does not have the stomach to oppose persons on the far left or far right. Also, outside of capitalizing on his time as U. S. Senator (and his wife's time as a board member to several companies) I don't know if he is willing to fight for anything. If people who claim to be in the middle walk away from fights with the right and left wing, what are we left with? Extremes. It's probably best for Bayh if he does not have the stomach for the fight but the result is no middle ground.

    4. JK - I meant that the results don't ring true. I also questioned the 10-year-old study because so much in the "health care system" has changed since the study was made. Moreover, it was hard to get to any overall conclusion or observation with the article. But....don't be defensive given my comments; I still think you do the best job of any journalist in the area shedding light and insight on important health care issues.

    5. Probably a good idea he doesn't run. I for one do not want someone who lives in VIRGINIA to be the governor. He gave it some thought, but he likes Virginia too much. What a name I cannot say on this site! The way these people think and operate amuses me.

    ADVERTISEMENT