House pursues 'Arkansas model' on health coverage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana could expand health insurance coverage for low-income Hoosiers entirely through private health insurance plans under an amendment adopted by a House committee on Monday.

The approach, known as the Arkansas model, would divert federal and state funds originally earmarked for a Medicaid expansion to instead give subsidies—or “premium assistance”—to help low-income Hoosiers buy health insurance via a federally run online marketplace known as an excahnge.

But the Republican-sponsored amendment brought immediate criticism from other Republicans, including representatives of Gov. Mike Pence’s administration.

President Obama’s administration approved the Arkansas model in February and, since then, several other states have expressed interest in it. Those states include Florida, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas.

The amendment to Senate Bill 551, adopted by the House Public Health Committee on Monday, would open a second avenue by which Indiana could expand coverage to Hoosiers with incomes below the federal poverty limit.

Until now, Pence and the Republican-dominated Legislature have insisted on expanding Medicaid only by using the Health Indiana Plan. That plan relies on health savings accounts and some patient contributions to offer health insurance coverage to about 40,000 working Hoosiers with low incomes.

Pence, a Republican, wants to use the HIP program, or something very similar to it, to expand coverage to more than 400,000 Hoosiers with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty limit, which is about $32,000 for a family of four.

Senate Bill 551 gives the Pence administration the green light to do just that. But so far the Obama administration has been cool to that idea, which has caused some Democratic lawmakers to accuse Pence of jeopardizing more than $10 billion in new federal funding.

In response, House lawmakers decided to add the Arkansas model as one more option for an Indiana expansion of health insurance to low-income Hoosiers. The amended bill passed by a vote of 8-5, with a mix of Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the tally.

“This would also be additional flexibility to add a premium support model,” said Rep. Ed Clere, R-New Albany, chairman of the House Public Health Committee, in describing the amendment.

But that’s not how Sen. Pat Miller, R-Indianapolis, the author of Senate Bill 551, saw the amendment.

“I have a number of reservations about the amendment and at this point, do not support it,” Miller said Monday morning. Speaking of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, the state agency that oversees the Medicaid program, she added, “My concern is that this amendment has limited some of our negotiating ability” with the federal government.

Also, Pat Casanova, director of Indiana's Office of Medicaid Policy & Planning, criticized the amendment for limiting Indiana’s ability to negotiate with and potentially withdraw from a Medicaid expansion deal with the Obama administration. She said the Pence administration already has the authority to negotiate a deal on Medicaid expansion with the federal government, yet the porvisions of the amendment may place new limits on that power.

“We do have concerns with this amendment and how it limits our ability to withdraw from a waiver or whatever program we would negotiate with the federal government, based only on the federal government’s ability to fund it, rather than whatever other requirements they would place on us,” Casanova said.

Clere disagreed that the amendment would limit the state’s negotiating options with the federal government.


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. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.