Indiana officials blast feds for 'over-regulation' on reform

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a prickly Halloween response to proposed federal rules on health-insurance exchanges, Indiana officials said the regulations are more trick than treat.

Michael Gargano, secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, blasted the rules for containing “glaring omissions” as well as creating new and unfunded “mandates” not included in the 2010 health reform law that called for the creation of the online marketplaces.

“In many respects, the breadth of the proposed regulations appears to be HHS' attempt to enforce an unfunded mandate,” wrote Gargano, referring to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is writing the new rules. “The extent of the regulation is unwarranted, unnecessary and potentially damaging to any effort to develop an efficient and cost-effective Exchange.”

Gargano’s letter, addressed to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, is the latest example of Gov. Mitch Daniels and his administration criticizing the health reform law, which is called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Daniels himself has loudly and repeatedly criticized the law and its implementation, including through op-ed columns in the Wall Street Journal.

“Our federal overlords have ruled,” Daniels wrote in the newspaper three days after President Obama signed the law. “We better start adjusting to our new status as good Europeans.”

In January 2011, Daniels issued an executive order to study whether Indiana should operate a health insurance exchange or whether it should simply join a federal exchange that HHS will establish. The Affordable Care Act provides federal funding to help states operate exchanges for two years—in 2014 and 2015—but the funding stops after that.

Gargano, who oversees the state agency spearheading Indiana’s response to the law, especially bristled at proposed rules that would extend beyond federal funding of the exchanges.

“Indiana questions what enforcement authority HHS maintains over state-based Exchanges after 2015 when there will be no continued federal funds to support Exchange operations,” Gargano wrote in response to an HHS proposed rule that significant changes to the exchanges after 2015 first receive HHS approval. “If HHS intends to retain approval rights after 2015, then this legislative mandate must be funded.”

In 32 pages of examples, Gargano repeatedly points to provisions in the proposed rules that he finds overly prescriptive and that he says will drive up costs for Indiana and other states.

He ticks off 18 separate provisions that, he says, are regulations not called for in the Affordable Care Act.

“The purpose of regulations are to clarify and carry out existing statutes, as opposed to creating additional, undefined requirements,” Gargano lectured Sebelius. He added, “Every additional requirement imposed on state-based Exchanges will increase costs to operate the Exchanges and, ultimately, the costs for consumers and for publicly funded insurance affordability programs.”

One of his loudest objections is to a provision that would require states to use state employees to determine the eligibility of applicants to the Indiana Medicaid program. Instead, Indiana wants to use contractors, who would be cheaper because they are not paid benefits and also could be signed on for the burst of activity that would come during a proposed annual enrollment period.

Gargano estimates that the state would save as much as $1.6 million a year by using contract workers instead of adding employees to the state payroll.

Determining Medicaid eligibility is a key part of the Affordable Care Act—and a key point of Daniels’ criticisms. The law requires all states to expand Medicaid eligibility up to 133 percent of the federal poverty limit—or about $30,000 per year—for a family of four.

Currently, Indiana’s eligibility levels are at or above that level for children. But for adults, only those with incomes up to 25 percent of the federal poverty limit—or about $5,800 for a family of four—qualify for Medicaid.

The local office of Seattle-based actuarial firm Milliman Inc. has estimated the Medicaid expansion would add 500,000 Hoosiers to the program, on top of the 1 million currently enrolled, and cost the state an extra $135 million to $185 million per year—after the expansion is funded the first two years by the federal government.


  • Avoid Paying benefits
    Two main methods are used in the health reform law to extend coverage to the uninsured: regulate insurance markets and extend Medicaid. States administer this program thus are required to apply eligibility rules. Gargano objects to paying benefits to eligibility workers. What part of universal coverage does he not understand. We need someone in that position committed to the goals of the program

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. Aaron is my fav!

  2. Let's see... $25M construction cost, they get $7.5M back from federal taxpayers, they're exempt from business property tax and use tax so that's about $2.5M PER YEAR they don't have to pay, permitting fees are cut in half for such projects, IPL will give them $4K under an incentive program, and under IPL's VFIT they'll be selling the power to IPL at 20 cents / kwh, nearly triple what a gas plant gets, about $6M / year for the 150-acre combined farms, and all of which is passed on to IPL customers. No jobs will be created either other than an handful of installers for a few weeks. Now here's the fun part...the panels (from CHINA) only cost about $5M on Alibaba, so where's the rest of the $25M going? Are they marking up the price to drive up the federal rebate? Indy Airport Solar Partners II LLC is owned by local firms Johnson-Melloh Solutions and Telemon Corp. They'll gross $6M / year in triple-rate power revenue, get another $12M next year from taxpayers for this new farm, on top of the $12M they got from taxpayers this year for the first farm, and have only laid out about $10-12M in materials plus installation labor for both farms combined, and $500K / year in annual land lease for both farms (est.). Over 15 years, that's over $70M net profit on a $12M investment, all from our wallets. What a boondoggle. It's time to wise up and give Thorium Energy your serious consideration. See http://energyfromthorium.com to learn more.

  3. Markus, I don't think a $2 Billion dollar surplus qualifies as saying we are out of money. Privatization does work. The government should only do what private industry can't or won't. What is proven is that any time the government tries to do something it costs more, comes in late and usually is lower quality.

  4. Some of the licenses that were added during Daniels' administration, such as requiring waiter/waitresses to be licensed to serve alcohol, are simply a way to generate revenue. At $35/server every 3 years, the state is generating millions of dollars on the backs of people who really need/want to work.

  5. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...