IBJNews

Q&A

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Mike Ripley, a health care lobbyist for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, talked about the business group’s views on a proposed expansion of coverage by the Indiana Medicaid program. As it stands now, the 2013 Indiana budget bill includes a plan passed by the Senate as Senate Bill 551, which would have OK’d the Pence administration to negotiate a block grant deal with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to expand Medicaid coverage via a program like the Healthy Indiana Plan. When that bill was altered in the House to remove the block grant concept, the chamber dropped its support. The altered House bill is now dead, and the original Senate plan has been added to the budget bill. Its ultimate fate is still unknown.

IBJ: Why did the chamber drop its support of SB 551 when the House altered it so it no longer required the state to negotiate a block grant with the government?

A: The inference is that, you’re on the hook for the full expansion, however you do that. And at the end of the day, how do you pay for that? How I’ve interpreted the block grant is, "OK, we’re going to get X amount of dollars and then we expand as much as we can." But without that, it’s pretty much open-ended.

IBJ: Why is an open-ended expansion of Medicaid, which is what President Obama’s health reform law originally called for, a problem—particularly considering that the federal government will pay 100 percent of the expansion costs for three years and then step its support to no less than 90 percent by 2020?

A: Then after 2020, what happens then? Where do you come up with those resources? That’s where we’ve been very concerned from a business perspective. Because who’s going to foot that bill? Employers are.

IBJ: Why do you prefer expanding coverage via the Healthy Indiana Plan, which gives participants a health savings accounts to pay for health care, but also caps enrollment if their use of health care exhausts the state’s allotted revenue for the program?

A: It has better reimbursement [than Medicaid] for doctors and hospitals. And it puts some skin in the game for individuals. I think that’s the best of all worlds. You’re not going to get everybody covered. But it’s something we can cope with financially.

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT