IBJNews

High court ruling could leave 290K Hoosiers uncovered

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling gave Indiana the option not to expand its Medicaid program and some state legislators promised to do exactly that, Indiana hospitals started to worry.

That’s because a decision by Indiana to leave its Medicaid program unchanged could leave as many as 290,000 Hoosier adults, who would have been newly eligible for Medicaid coverage, with no good options.

“That’s very worrisome to us,” said Doug Leonard, CEO of the Indiana Hospital Association, about the possibility of Indiana not expanding its Medicaid program. “That was really the heart of the bill for us.”

The 290,000 represents the number of Hoosier adults, under age 65, whose family incomes place them below the federal poverty limit and who are not already on Medicaid or commercial insurance. Not all of those adults would have signed up for Medicaid even if the program had been expanded, but experts predict that at least 80 percent would have, or nearly 250,000.

The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. health care reform, demanded that all states expand their Medicaid programs to include citizens making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty limit.

The law also will raise various taxes to fund subsidies for low- and moderate-income families to buy private health insurance. Those subsidies kick in for Hoosiers with incomes equal to or greater than the federal poverty limit, which is $23,050 per year for a family of four.

The beneficiaries of the Medicaid expansion would have been adults, since Indiana Medicaid already covers children whose families earn incomes up to at least the federal poverty limit, and sometimes higher.

But Indiana Medicaid only covers adults if they have children and their household income is only 24 percent of the federal poverty limit, or about $5,800 per year for a family of four. Childless adults are not eligible at all under existing Indiana Medicaid programs.

Under the Affordable Care Act, however, all low-income adults, no matter their family status, would be eligible to get Medicaid coverage. Their family incomes could be nearly $32,000 for a family of four and still qualify.

The health reform law pledged Congress to pay the entire cost of the Medicaid expansion from 2014 to 2016, and then relied on states to ramp up to pay 10 percent of the program by 2020.

If Indiana refuses to expand its Medicaid program as called for under the law, all adults and children with household incomes above the federal poverty limit but not higher than 138 percent of the poverty limit will still be eligible for government subsidies to buy private health insurance.

But it is parents with incomes below 100 percent of the poverty limit and above 24 percent of the limit—as well as all childless adults below the poverty limit—that would be left out if Indiana did not expand its Medicaid program.

For hospitals, those 290,000 Hoosiers are the most likely patients to not pay their bills. And while Medicaid’s payments aren’t great—only about 60 percent of hospitals’ costs—getting 60 cents on the dollar is far better for hospitals than the 10 cents or less hospitals typically collect on unpaid bills, known as bad debt.

Also, most hospitals would write off care provided to patients in poverty as charity care, collecting nothing.

“Clearly, for our industry, we would rather see the coverage in Medicaid,” Leonard said.

That’s what hospitals have been banking on since the start of the health reform debate in 2009. The American Hospital Association struck a deal then with the Obama administration to support $155 billion in reimbursement cuts in the federal Medicare program—in exchange for additional revenue they would gain by having more insured (read: paying) patients.

“We couldn’t sustain those cuts without that extra revenue,” Leonard said.

Slightly more than half of the newly insured patients under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act were going to be covered by the federal-state Medicaid program.

In Indiana, that meant roughly 400,000 new Medicaid patients, according to estimates by the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation and the Washington-based actuarial firm Milliman Inc., respectively.

But after the Supreme Court on June 28 struck down the law’s vow to withhold all Medicaid funding for any state that did not agree to expand its Medicaid programs, the extent of the Medicaid expansion is now in doubt.

The Milliman study, commissioned by Gov. Mitch Daniels, estimated the additional coverage by itself would cost Indiana about $951 million over the years 2014 to 2020. Additional costs, such as increasing reimbursement to doctors in order to entice enough of them to accept Medicaid patients, could have pushed the bill to $2 billion over those seven years.

Because of those costs, the president pro tem of the Indiana Senate, Sen. David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said Indiana would “certainly” not expand its Medicaid program.

“Now, Hoosiers can avoid such a tax increase by the state opting out of Obamacare's Medicaid mandate, which we will certainly do," Long said in a statement after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling.

Daniels said the decision would fall not to him, but to the man that replaces him as governor in January and to the next Legislature.

John Gregg, the Democrat candidate for governor, issued a statement that did not address the Medicaid expansion issue.

Mike Pence, the Republican candidate to replace Daniels, stopped short of saying Indiana would not expand its Medicaid program, talking more about the flexibility that might be had under the new ruling.

Indeed, many hope the Obama administration, in an effort to keep the Medicaid expansion alive, gives states flexibility to design other programs to cover low-income residents up to 138 percent of the poverty limit. Some even hope the administration allows states to expand Medicaid but to a lower income threshold.

Daniels still has a request pending to use his Healthy Indiana Plan as the vehicle for expanding Medicaid. That program, which uses personal health savings accounts, has about 60,000 enrollees.

The Supreme Court ruling certainly gives states like Indiana a better position to bargain from, noted Leonard, the hospital association executive. That could take the form of greater flexibility, he said, or perhaps the federal government might promise to bear the full costs of the expansion for more years.

“It sounds like the federal government is going to make it very attractive to the states to say yes,” said Leonard, hopefully.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • For Red Dog
    Low income workers and those with no income do not need to file a Federal tax return. That's the IRS regulation and the reason many need not file. The Federal trigger to file based on AGI is higher than what the state of Indiana extorts from low income workers. There is no ACA penalty for the unemployed or for even those whose income significantly exceeds the poverty level so there is no need to 'track them down'.
  • Mandate
    It's reported that 44% of the population doesn't file a tax return with the % not insured. How in the world will the IRS track them down and fine them for not buying insurance. Easy, the middle class will fork out more $$ to cover these people who can't or refuse to work. More handout entitlement mentality.
    • please comply
      Governor Daniels please comply with federal law
    • Headline is wrong
      It is not the high court ruling but, rather, the Indiana General Assembly whose action/inaction would leave 290K Hoosiers uncovered!
    • Look into Milliman Study
      Someone needs to do a better job looking into the Milliman study. If you'll remember there was some questions about its findings when it was first released. It doesn't take into account any perceived or assumed cost savings from the measures that will be implemented in the ACA. It only takes current spending levels on Medicaid patients and projects them on the expanded population. Of course those projections are going to be high using that methodology. The study is being cited in almost every recent story and it doesn't provide the whole picture.
    • Those Famous Words
      To the thousands of people who work within the healthcare field, there are those famous words, almost like "Gentlemen Start Your Engines", and those words are, "I don't care what it costs Doc, just save my life". I heard those words, dozens of times each week, over a forty year career. The healthcare system is broken, not because of Medicaid, but because of Medicare and the way Medicare is managed. The best example I can offer is therapy for patents being discharged from a hospital following treatment. If the patient receives "home therapy services" Medicare pays a lower fee than if the patient returns to the hospital for "in-house therapy". In other words, Medicare pays more for the same therapy services back at the hospital than at home. Unless the patent asks "what does this service cost" the hospitals are willing to milk the tit of Medicare for as long as it lasts. Greed and Profit are the battle cry words of healthcare, and those who deny this fact are fooling themselves. It is not the doctors who take the largest fees for service, it is the hospitals, because the hospitals continue to provide free services to folks who just walk into the emergency room like it was a waiting room at a doctor's office. Whether you like Medicaid or not actually depends on your lot in life. If you are poor it means everything, if you are wealthy it means "waste". I enjoy reading the thoughts of others in the healthcare debate, and count myself lucky that I no longer hear those fateful words, "I don't care what it costs Doc, just save my life".
    • ACA
      Health care is not some pot of gold that everyone is greedily diving for. We don't know when or how much we will need; it's an intangible need and yet it is so vital for our survival. We need it to be available to us as individuals, and we also need it as a society. It provides some assurance that our future is not susceptible to complete financial collapse. The idea that an average wage-earner is capable of covering all possible health care needs by paying out of pocket, is asinine. Likewise, health insurance has become unaffordable for most people, whether they're working or not. We need universal health care, but the health care profiteers have their finger hovering over the red buzzy button marked "socialism", the one Koch bros and co. have paid the right-wing media to train us to respond to. I'm insured by HIP. It's a good program, but is way too generous. I have the cheapest and best health care I've ever had. It could be revamped to charge me more, offer me less, and provide it to more Hoosiers. Before this I paid into a catastrophic insurance plan for 10 years. During that time, I could never afford to go to the doctor. Instead I was paying $2500 a year to be a good citizen who would not be burdening others, should I become seriously ill. The Affordable Care Act is an attempt to fix our broken health care system. Unfortunately we're still using a corporate, for-profit system. Health care should not be a for-profit venture. Period.
    • 1% of the 290,000
      As a Hoosier who does not have any healthcare coverage at this time I get why some people might be worried. I pay cash for everything I have done at the doctors or emergency care facilities because I can work and know that obamacare is just so very wrong. And it makes me SICK TO DEATH when I walk in to the offices and see people who are totally using the system to get free care. It happens every single time I go to the doctor. And I know I’m not the only one out here that sees that. It’s disgusting that people think by just living in Indiana that they are entitled to anything free. I mean I get the WIC help. Babies should have that chance and I think that program has made a huge difference if the health of newborns here in Indiana. But this endless oh I’m a poor suffering indigent act really needs to stop! Omg people stop acting like it’s the Middle Ages here. It’s time for Indiana to stop taking ALL the Medicaid dollars and for Hoosiers to man up already because we have TONS of seniors to look forward to caring for in the next few years. The numbers on that should scare anyone out there under fifty as we’re the ones have to pay for that. And with the stress of the new healthcare law now it’s just best to walk away from it. Just say no and let the people who are abusing Hoosier help and tax dollars to just roll themselves right on over to Illinois or Michigan. They love that sort of thing there.

    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 as I read this the one question that continues to come to me to ask is. Didn't Indiana only have a couple of exchanges for people to opt into which were very high because we really didn't want to expect the plan. So was this study done during that time and if so then I can understand these numbers. I also understand that we have now opened up for more options for hoosiers to choose from. Please correct if I'm wrong and if I'm not why was this not part of the story so that true overview could be taken away and not just parts of it to continue this negative tone against the ACA. I look forward to the clarity.

    2. It's really very simple. All forms of transportation are subsidized. All of them. Your tax money already goes toward every single form of transportation in the state. It is not a bad thing to put tax money toward mass transit. The state spends over 1,000,000,000 (yes billion) on roadway expansions and maintenance every single year. If you want to cry foul over anything cry foul over the overbuilding of highways which only serve people who can afford their own automobile.

    3. So instead of subsidizing a project with a market-driven scope, you suggest we subsidize a project that is way out of line with anything that can be economically sustainable just so we can have a better-looking skyline?

    4. Downtowner, if Cummins isn't getting expedited permitting and tax breaks to "do what they do", then I'd be happy with letting the market decide. But that isn't the case, is it?

    5. Patty, this commuter line provides a way for workers (willing to work lower wages) to get from Marion county to Hamilton county. These people are running your restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and retail stores. I don't see a lot of residents of Carmel working these jobs.

    ADVERTISEMENT