IBJNews

701 Hoosiers choose Obamacare plans at rollout

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 Just 701 Indiana residents chose a health insurance plan through the federally run online exchange during its glitch-plagued first month of operation, the federal government announced Wednesday. Meanwhile

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said fewer than 27,000 people managed to enroll for health insurance last month in the 36 states relying on the problem-filled federal website for President Barack Obama's overhaul.

The dismal numbers were even lower than estimates recently circulated. There was one bright spot: States running their own websites did better than the feds, reporting more than 79,000 sign-ups.

Even so, total private insurance enrollment after the first month of the health care rollout was only about one-fifth what the administration had expected during that time period.

Enrollment numbers totaled 106,185. A Sept. 5 administration estimate had projected that 494,620 people would enroll in the first month.

In Indiana, figures also showed that the insurance exchange had nearly 16,000 completed applications from Indiana from Oct. 1 to Nov. 2. Those applications sought coverage for nearly 32,000 people, and more than 19,000 of them have been found eligible to enroll in a plan through the exchange, figures showed.

More than 11,300 people have been found to be eligible for Medicaid, the state-federal health plan for needy people, or the federally subsidized Children's Health Insurance Program, the figures showed. Those people might still be awaiting a state determination of eligibility.

The HHS figures did not indicate how many Indiana residents selecting a health plan have started paying premiums.

Indiana Family and Social Services Administration spokesman Jim Gavin said the agency had no comment Wednesday on the Indiana numbers released by HHS.

More than 500,000 uninsured Indiana residents are believed to be eligible to purchase plans through the federally run exchange under the health care overhaul. Indiana, like more than 30 other states, opted to have the federal government run the exchange for Indiana rather than operate its own.

Many questions still remain unanswered about the status of expanding Medicaid coverage for Indiana residents. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld last year the federal mandate that people must own insurance, but struck down a provision forcing states to expand Medicaid.

Gov. Mike Pence and Republican lawmakers controlling the General Assembly have supported expanding coverage using the Healthy Indiana Plan, Indiana's Medicaid-funded health savings account program. The Pence administration won a one-year extension of the Healthy Indiana Plan last summer from the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but negotiations over an expansion of the plan have been delayed.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Indiana Leaders Are Derelict
    The governor and the Republican led legislature have been derelict in promoting the common good for Hoosiers without insurance. So much for the party that claims to be "family oriented." They would rather stand on right-wing ideology and fight everything the current administration is doing than be pragmatic and work to make health care for all Hoosier citizens a reality.
  • Too bad...
    Too bad our "leaders" chose not to build an exchange for us, resulting in Hoosiers being left to deal with the inadequate Federal solution. This was, of course, the point of doing so: To make it as hard as possible for Hoosiers to sign up for insurance so that afterwards, the failure they helped guaranteed can be used as a talking point against the law.

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. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT