IBJNews

Indiana Senate approves Medicaid expansion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Senate voted Tuesday to expand Medicaid using a state-run program, as lawmakers and Gov. Mike Pence continue negotiating how the state should cover an estimated 400,000 low-income residents.

Pence and the Republican-led General Assembly have beat back efforts by Democrats to expand coverage using the traditional federal-state Medicaid program for the poor. Instead, they say, expansion should be done either through the Healthy Indiana Plan or a similar state-run program, giving the state more control over costs.

Expanding HIP would cost the state roughly 3 percent less than expanding Medicaid, State actuary Milliman Inc. estimated in a Feb. 25. However, supporters say HIP would promote more responsible decisions by enrollees.

HIP currently covers about 40,000 low-income residents who don't qualify for Medicaid. Some Indiana lawmakers want to use HIP to expand Medicaid as part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

The federal government will pick up the full cost of expanding Medicaid for the first three years and 90 percent of the cost after that.

On the table is an expected $10.5 billion in federal aid for the state in the next seven years. But expanding HIP could also cost the state close to $2 billion over that same period.

Pence asked House Republicans to hold off on a similar measure last week, saying he wanted more time for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to sign off on the HIP expansion. House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said Tuesday that Pence likes the Senate's request for block grants.

"At least the leadership is all in favor of not using Medicaid expansion as the vehicle here because of the potential for massive cost in the future," Bosma said.

Seven Democratic senators voted with all of the chamber's Republicans Tuesday for the expansion, despite reservations about using HIP.

"We don't agree with the bill the way it was written, but we want to make sure it remains alive," said Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Portage.

Tallian asked lawmakers to approve a temporary expansion of Medicaid, for two years, similar to what Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, is supporting. But her amendment and similar efforts in the House failed this week.

The Senate bill now moves to the House for consideration as lawmakers hit the halfway point of their four-month session.

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. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT