By: Congressman Larry Bucshon, M.D. (IN-08) and State Representative Tim Brown, M.D. (HD-41)

March 15, 2015

Following our statewide “Hoosier Healthcare Tour” last year, we made the case for why Indiana’s consumer-driven Medicaid replacement program, Healthy Indiana Plan 2.0 was best suited to help Hoosiers in need.

Since then, the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington made concessions to approve Indiana’s request to end traditional Medicaid and use HIP 2.0 as a vehicle to cover 350,000 uninsured Hoosiers.

Make no mistake, this is an unprecedented victory for the health and prosperity of Hoosiers and for conservative health care policy solutions in the age of the Affordable Care Act.

Thanks to the leadership of Gov. Mike Pence, Indiana has demonstrated that states are better suited to care for their most vulnerable citizens than an increasingly inefficient, ineffective federal bureaucracy when they are granted the proper flexibility.

While some have advocated for the big-government expansion of traditional Medicaid, in Indiana we’ve taken a different path — one that focuses on consumer-driven health care and health savings accounts that empower patients.

In 1965, the Medicaid program was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson with the noble goal of casting an important safety net for Americans who could not afford basic medical care. The program was a critical step forward to ensure the most vulnerable among us receive they care they need.

Unfortunately, 50 years later this program is failing the patients it was intended to help.

Many Medicaid patients rely on the emergency room for primary care, the program is going broke, and patients’ access to their physicians is being limited. In fact, statistics show that patients enrolled in Medicaid may actually be worse off than their uninsured counterparts.

Because of this reality, we believe those who truly care for the well-being of their fellow citizens ought not settle for the expansion of this broken, failing program because it has become a barrier to quality care.

Instead, this important safety net must be reformed and strengthened through the states, not through a one-size-fits-all federal approach.

Thankfully, Indiana is leading the way with a common-sense prescription that conservatives have championed for decades — the idea that the federal government should provide block grant funding to the states so they can innovate and develop a program specific to their own state’s needs.

Over 60,000 Hoosiers were enrolled in the HIP pilot program which boasts a 98 percent approval rating and led to an almost 11 percent reduction in health care costs annually.

HIP 2.0 builds on this record of success.

It ends traditional Medicaid, is fiscally responsible, and puts the patient in the driver’s seat, not government.

The plan is budget neutral, requiring no new taxes and no new spending from the general fund. More importantly, it helps reduce excess, unnecessary costs in the health care system which helps to lower the amount expended on health care annually.

HIP 2.0 is built on self-reliance and personal responsibility instead of heavy-handed government mandates because we trust that patients and their doctors make better decisions than government bureaucrats.

In fact, the data shows us that the best care is delivered through a system where patients have a personal financial stake in their choices and where decisions are made by the patient, their family, and their physician.

Furthermore, by incentivizing preventive health care, the plan gives patients the tools they need to live happier, healthier lives.

We were happy to see Gov. Pence highlight the merits of HIP 2.0 during his recent speech to conservatives from across the country at the Conservative Political Action Conference because this is good, sound conservative policy. And these ideas aren’t new, nor are they complicated.

We firmly believe that the Affordable Care Act is the wrong approach to health care reform and must be replaced with patient-centered reforms that ensure every American has access to quality, affordable care.

One just needs look to the King v. Burwell case before Supreme Court to see that the law was poorly written and has put the well-being of millions of Americans at risk. As conservatives, it’s imperative that we be solutions oriented to provide Americans the security that comes with a working health care system centered on their needs, instead of Washington mandates.

HIP 2.0 represents the success our conservative ideas can have when the federal government allows states to be innovative with Medicaid funding through block grants.

This common-sense idea should be an integral part of federal health care policy as we move forward.

In our diagnosis, we believe other states would be wise to follow the Hoosier success story.

Larry Bucshon, a cardiothoracic surgeon and member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is serving his third term in Congress representing Indiana’s 8th District. Tim Brown, a former emergency room physician, has served in the General Assembly since 1994. He currently represents House District 41.

http://www.courierpress.com/opinion/columnists/commentary-other-states-should-follow-hoosier-health-plan_98831026

A southern Indiana man who followed the same teenage girl through two stores on separate occasions, staying as close as five feet to her at all times, could not convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that his felony conviction for stalking needed to be overturned.

Steven M. Sandleben was charged with stalking 13-year-old A.S. after closely following her section by section and aisle by aisle through Target and Michaels stores. He also videotaped her as he followed her. A.S.’s father called the police after the second incident, and Sandleben was arrested and charged with stalking.

In Steven M. Sandleben v. State of Indiana, 82A01-1407-CR-284, he claimed that the state didn’t prove that he stalked the teenager, but the COA affirmed that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandleben: (1) knowingly or intentionally (2) engaged in a course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of the victim (3) that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and (4) that actually caused the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened.

Sandleben argued that he was free to videotape whomever he wanted while in public, but the judges pointed out that filming A.S. was not the basis for the stalking charge, rather it was it his intentional, repeated acts of following the girl. A.S. testified that Sandleben’s actions made her nervous and scared.

The COA also determined there was no error in admitting evidence obtained as a result of his arrest. Sandleben’s rights were not violated under either the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution because officers had probable cause to arrest him for stalking. Thus, the photos or videos on his phone or camera were probative evidence of his conduct toward A.S.

They also affirmed his 30-month sentence, finding it to be appropriate given the nature of the offense and his character. The appeals court noted that Sandleben was convicted of two counts of Class D felony voyeurism just prior to the instant conviction, and also has misdemeanor convictions for public voyeurism and possession of paraphernalia. His sentence is within the sentencing range for a Class D felony.