IBJNews

Pressure rises on lawmakers to expand Medicaid

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Up until now, Gov. Mike Pence and his fellow Republicans in the Legislature have been playing a game of poker with the Obama administration over a potential expansion of Indiana’s Medicaid program. But all of a sudden, Indiana’s hand just got quite a bit weaker.

Pence reiterated last week that he won’t support raising eligibility for the Indiana Medicaid program to 138 percent of the federal poverty limit—unless Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services lets the state use its Healthy Indiana Plan as the vehicle for that expansion.

So far, the feds have given an unofficial “no” to that request.

Since the Supreme Court’s June decision allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion prescribed by Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Indiana leaders have figured they could use that “opt-out” possibility to exact flexibility from the Obama administration.

But in just the past month, Obama’s team has been able to win over three conservative Republican governors—Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder—without making such promises of flexibility.

The governors were concerned that not expanding Medicaid could put some of their states' rural hospitals out of business.

Their support does not guarantee that those states’ legislators will, indeed, vote to expand Medicaid, but it certainly adds momentum to proponents of expansion.

Indiana now is surrounded on all sides by states that have indicated they are likely to expand Medicaid.

“That certainly puts a little bit of pressure on the governor,” said Ed Feigenbaum, publisher of the Indiana Legislative Insight newsletter. “And it gives a little more credibility to the Democrats [who are arguing that Medicaid expansion is] going to be the public policy of the country, and if we want to protect our people and protect our businesses, this is something we need to consider.”

And Medicaid expansion is on the table. This week, Republican legislators in the House and Senate will introduce language into existing bills that would require the state to expand Medicaid—although they likely will reiterate Pence’s call for the state to use the Healthy Indiana Plan to do it.

That plan, created in a bipartisan effort in 2007, expanded health insurance coverage to about 40,000 Hoosiers using health savings accounts to which most recipients are required to contribute at least a small amount.

That feature is the sticking point for the Obama administration, said Seema Verma, a health care consultant who has been the point person on health reform for the state of Indiana.

“It's that we require people to make contributions. That really flies in the face of the entitlement thing,” Verma said during a luncheon speech Friday at a conference on health reform in Indianapolis. The conference was staged by the Center for the Business of Life Sciences at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business.

What’s at stake in the decision is coverage for roughly 300,000 Hoosiers who have incomes below the federal poverty limit yet higher than the income threshold for Indiana’s Medicaid program.

The federal poverty limit is $11,170 for a single adult or $23,050 for a family of four. But Indiana Medicaid does not allow childless adults to enroll in Medicaid unless their incomes are just 25 percent of those limits.

Hospitals are desperately lobbying for the state to expand Medicaid. They agreed with the Obama administration to support cuts in federal payments to hospitals to cover health care for the uninsured, in hopes of receiving more money as the law expanded coverage to an estimated 27 million more Americans.

But since the Medicaid expansion was supposed to achieve about half of that expansion, hospitals face the prospect of reduced payments with only a modest increase in paying customers.

On Monday, the Indiana Hospital Association released a study claiming the Medicaid expansion would add $3.4 billion to Indiana’s economy per year.

But it would come at a cost to the state. A study by the actuarial firm Milliman Inc., produced at the request of former Gov. Mitch Daniels, estimated the Medicaid expansion would cost the state an average of $140 million per year from 2014 to 2020.

Another set of estimates, produced by the Urban Institute, a left-of-center think tank based in Washington, D.C., pegged the cost of expansion at less than $54 million per year.

Feigenbaum said he expects Indiana’s lawmakers to come up with a solution this session that expands Medicaid but in a way that minimizes the cost to the state. And then, like the Legislature did with the Healthy Indiana Plan, they’ll take the risk of getting it approved by the federal government.

“If I had to guess at this point, I would say that there would be an expansion but not in a form that anybody forecasts at this point,” Feigenbaum said. “That we’ll come up with a unique and innovative way of doing it within the rules, that will still help more people but wouldn’t have as deep a fiscal impact.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • of course...
    ...the Republicoins could just admit that THEY have NO answers for the uninsured and under-insured) in this stae/ country and universal, single-payer health care is the BEST answer for all but the for-profit health insurance companies...but since we KNOW the Republicons are OWNED by corporate 'Merka and take their marching orders from their overlords, actual citizens will continue to suffer and die...real 'family values' kinda folks ain't they

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. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT