RUSTHOVEN: Pence pushes plan to national stature

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

RusthovenA while back, we wrote about Gov. Pence’s efforts to use federal health care dollars for our state’s successful Healthy Indiana Plan, rather than expanding the failure that is Medicaid.

One Obamacare feature makes Medicaid expansion a condition for additional health care funds. Using such funds for anything else requires a federal waiver.

Pence has worked to secure a waiver so Indiana can keep moving forward with HIP. This is about to pay off, with this month’s announcement of a revised program, called HIP 2.0, that will go through the formal waiver process and is likely to be approved.

Pence explained the program, including key differences from (and improvements on) Medicaid, in a thoughtful Wall Street Journal article and an address to the American Enterprise Institute. Typical of today’s politics, however, both the left and some on the right are straining to label his initiative “Medicaid expansion.”

The left does so in an attempt to portray Pence as now recognizing the supposed virtues of Medicaid and even of Obamacare. The Obama administration calls Pence’s proposal a “Medicaid coverage expansion.” Left-leaning Politico headlined its story “Mike Pence Proposes Expanding Indiana Medicaid Plan,” stating “Pence would become the eighth Republican governor to expand his state’s Medicaid program.”

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, weathervane of conventional liberal thinking, titled his column “Indiana’s Gov. Pence taking the Obamacare money and running with it.” In Milbank’s rendering, Pence’s expanding HIP is somehow transformed into “what Obamacare is all about.”

Meanwhile, some on the strident right detect betrayal of conservative principles, as they often do. John Davidson, writing in The Federalist, derided HIP as “merely the latest iteration of full Obamacare Medicaid expansion thinly disguised as a conservative entitlement reform.” Goodness.

Another Federalist column, titled “Mike Pence’s George W. Bush Problem,” discerned in HIP signs that Pence, like Bush, would use “conservative rhetoric to justify a number of very unconservative ideas.”

Heritage Foundation chimed in with a piece proclaiming “Pence’s Indiana Medicaid Decision a Disappointment.” Heritage, once respected, has been transformed by its new president, former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, into a virtual Tea Party pressure group. DeMint’s Heritage spearheaded the “defund Obamacare or shutdown the government” strategy—with DeMint opining “we don’t know” if Obama would veto a defunding bill. Oh, I think we do.

Pence’s critics from left and right are off-target. Only a determined Obama apologist like Milbank could twist a waiver from the act’s Medicaid expansion provisions as being “what Obamacare is all about.” HIP differs markedly from Medicaid; and Obamacare is mainly “about” health insurance mandates that Pence forcefully opposes.

Doubt HIP differs from Medicaid? Well, Indiana’s program includes “placing enrollees in private insurance instead of traditional Medicaid, requiring some enrollees to pay modest premiums, conditioning enrollment for some on paying into a health savings account, encouraging unemployed or underemployed beneficiaries to pursue work opportunities and attempting to limit overuse of the emergency room.”

These Medicaid opposites are listed in the Politico piece that claims Pence is “expanding” Medicaid. The description actually understates key HIP features making it a consumer-driven model that has reduced costs, while encouraging healthier lifestyles and preventive care.

HIP works. Medicaid doesn’t. Pence is making Indiana a model for the nation.•


Rusthoven, an Indianapolis attorney and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, was associate counsel to President Reagan. Send comments on this column to ibjedit@ibj.com.


  • Make HIP 2.0 Statewide
    One major concern about HIP has been the report of something like 80% of the enrollees are in Marion County. Time for an effective statewide strategy, if this is the state's healthcare solution.

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. Looking at the two companies - in spite of their relative size to one another -- Ricker's image is (by all accounts) pretty solid and reputable. Their locations are clean, employees are friendly and the products they offer are reasonably priced. By contrast, BP locations are all over the place and their reputation is poor, especially when you consider this is the same "company" whose disastrous oil spill and their response was nothing short of irresponsible should tell you a lot. The fact you also have people who are experienced in franchising saying their system/strategy is flawed is a good indication that another "spill" has occurred and it's the AM-PM/Ricker's customers/company that are having to deal with it.

  2. Daniel Lilly - Glad to hear about your points and miles. Enjoy Wisconsin and Illinois. You don't care one whit about financial discipline, which is why you will blast the "GOP". Classic liberalism.

  3. Isn't the real reason the terrain? The planners under-estimated the undulating terrain, sink holes, karst features, etc. This portion of the route was flawed from the beginning.

  4. You thought no Indy was bad, how's no fans working out for you? THe IRl No direct competition and still no fans. Hey George Family, spend another billion dollars, that will fix it.

  5. I live downtown Indy and had to be in downtown Chicago for a meeting. In other words, I am the target demographic for this train. It leaves at 6:00-- early but doable. Then I saw it takes 5+ hours. No way. I drove. I'm sure I paid 3 to 5 times as much once you factor in gas, parking, and tolls, but it was reimbursed so not a factor for me. Any business traveler is going to take the option that gets there quickly and reliably... and leisure travelers are going to take the option that has a good schedule and promotional prices (i.e., Megabus). Indy to Chicago is the right distance (too short to fly but takes several hours to drive) that this train could be extremely successful even without subsidies, if they could figure out how to have several frequencies (at least 3x/day) and make the trip in a reasonable amount of time. For those who have never lived on the east coast-- Amtrak is the #1 choice for NY-DC and NY-Boston. They have the Acela service, it runs almost every hour, and it takes you from downtown to downtown. It beats driving and flying hands down. It is too bad that we cannot build something like this in the midwest, at least to connect the bigger cities.