IBJNews

Indiana Medicaid chief: Feds leave states in dark

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Good ole' Obamacare. Thanks liberals and those who didn't bother to vote.

  2. Yes. Blame those who were too lazy to go vote Obama out and those who voted him in again. That's my take on it. I know folks won't get it on the left. OK. Start berating me now!

  3. Serioulsy, people are AGINST this project? Most communities would be salivating over a project like this. You'd rather have an empty eye-sore gas station and shacks posing as apartments? This project is exactly what BR needs. BUILD IT MR MAYOR. And yes, I am a BR resident, and have been for 20 years.

  4. As a St. Vincent employee of over 20 years, I am saddened and disheartened by this announcement. Unfortunately, as the healthcare "industry" continues on this political and corporate path, all that St. Vincent Hospital has stood for spiritually for its employees and this community is being sucked dry. I know it truly has no choice. It is not just Obamacare or just competition or just any single thing. This trend started long before I was even born when the government became involved in healthcare and it became an "industry." I grieve for those who will lose their jobs, one of whom may be me, but I also grieve for this hospital which I have served for over 20 years. May God give us and it the grace to withstand the future of healthcare.

  5. Why do people constantly harp on this issue and act ignorant about what a city population measures? A city's population is the city's population. There is no argument or debate about it. If you want to measure the density of a city--measure it. If you want to measure the size of a metropolitan area, then measure the metropolitan population. City boundaries cover different sized areas--and they always have (though the disparity has probably increased since about 1900 or so when more cities began annexing their surrounding communities). For example, San Francisco only covers 49 square miles while Houston cover nearly 600 square miles. No one argues about the population rankings of either city even though they clearly cover extremely different sized areas. Indianapolis is the 13 largest city by population in the U.S. That is a fact. While the population of a metropolitan area may give you a better sense of how large a community is, as noted, even metro areas can vary widely in the size of geographic area they cover--so that is not a perfect comparison either.

ADVERTISEMENT