IBJNews

State expects to extend Healthy Indiana Plan a year

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State officials are expected to sign off on a one-year extension of the Healthy Indiana Plan started by Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Family and Social Services Administration spokeswoman Marni Lemons said the state received the needed paperwork from the federal government Thursday and enrollees will not see a lapse in coverage. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services agreed to a waiver that would allow the state to continue the program unchanged for a year, she said.

FSSA has until Dec. 31 to formally accept the extension.

The Healthy Indiana program offers health savings accounts to the state's working poor in place of traditional Medicaid coverage and requires them to pay a monthly contribution to their savings account.

The program has covered roughly 100,000 residents since it began in 2008 and was offered by the state as an alternative to the Medicaid expansion in the federal health care overhaul. More than 40,000 residents are enrolled in the program now.

"The HIP program is the quintessential example of state innovation," FSSA Secretary Michael Gargano wrote in a July 25 letter to CMS. "Over the past four years, the program has demonstrated strong success."

The state originally sought a three-year extension of the program via the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' waiver process, but the federal government replied in July with an offer of one year and a request that the state end mandatory contributions from enrollees.

Lemon said the new offer allows Indiana to continue collecting a monthly contribution, but did not say why CMS reversed its position.

A CMS spokeswoman was not immediately available for comment Friday.

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