Indiana Medicaid chief: Feds leave states in dark

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana's Medicaid chief told lawmakers Thursday that the federal government has largely left states in the dark on implementing the federal health care overhaul because it hasn't yet provided needed guidelines.

Medicaid Director Pat Casanova told the Health Finance Commission that key parts of the overhaul take effect in 2014 — about 3-1/2 years away — but states will need several years to pass their own rules and implement the overhaul.

"While it sounds like it's a long ways off, it's around the corner," Casanova said. She noted some state rulemaking on the 2004 federal Deficit Reduction Act is only occurring now.

Her comments underscored the challenges facing Indiana and other states as they grapple with putting the health care changes into place in a relatively short span of time while they also contend with the economic downtown and strained state budgets. Parts of the health care overhaul involve changes to Medicaid, a federal health care program that states administer.

Complicating matters is the size of Indiana's relatively small Medicaid staff of fewer than 90 people, which also is facing deadlines for implementing federal medical privacy rules and health information technology upgrades, Casanova said.

"This is like a tsunami coming at us," she said.

Casanova said her office has not sought some federal grants to pay for implementing the health care overhaul because it lacks necessary staff or matching funds.

But a spokesman for the Family and Social Services Administration, Marcus Barlow, said Casanova misspoke and that the state so far has passed up applying for only one grant while the Division of Aging and the Department of Insurance have applied for four others, seeking a total of $2.6 million. The grants haven't been awarded yet.

However, Casanova's comments that that state was passing up federal funds dismayed Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, an alternate member of the State Budget Committee.

"I'm just stunned," DeLaney said afterward. "I don't like it that we're not apply for grants because we don't have staff."

DeLaney also criticized the administration of Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels for lagging behind other states in putting the health care overhaul into place and for leaving lawmakers "out of that process." He noted other governors have taken steps to implement provisions of the overhaul while Indiana waits.

Daniels has criticized the health care overhaul and Indiana is among a group of states suing to overturn it. A private actuary on contract to the administration has estimated the overhaul will cost state government at least $2.9 billion over the next decade. Much of the money will go toward Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands of newly eligible Indiana residents.

Daniels policy aide Lawren Mills said the only major decision by the administration so far was to not expand its high-risk insurance pool for people with pre-existing medical conditions, instead allowing the federal government to establish such coverage in the state.

Mills told lawmakers the administration was working on putting together a package of proposed legislation for implementing the overhaul.

Senate Health Committee Chairwoman Pat Miller, R-Indianapolis, expressed frustration over federal Medicaid officials offering little guidance on implementing the overhaul. President Barack Obama last week bypassed the Senate and appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to run Medicare and Medicaid.

"It's very complicated for us right now," Miller said.


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. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.