By Lesley Weidenbener
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – Federal officials have given Indiana the OK to extend its Healthy Indiana Plan one more year – but have not yet acted on the state’s request to expand HIP to thousands more Hoosiers.

The action by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services means residents now signed up for the current HIP program can stay on it. But it does not change the program’s eligibility.

“This decision by the federal government to renew our current Healthy Indiana Plan is welcome news and will bring certainty to the more than 60,000 Hoosiers who currently enjoy the benefits of this proven health care program,” Gov. Mike Pence said in a statement.

But state officials continue to wait anxiously for word about whether they can expand the program into what Pence is calling HIP 2.0. That would make Hoosiers who earn a slightly higher income eligible for the coverage.

In a letter to the state, CMS Director Cindy Mann said the agency extended the original HIP plan for one year “in order not to disrupt the coverage currently afforded in Indiana as the state continues to work with CMS” on the HIP 2.0 proposal. Mann said discussions about the expanded proposal continue.

But Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said Monday the federal government needs to act now to approve HIP 2.0.

“I think we’re seeing high stakes politics being played right now,” Long said.

Last summer, Pence requested permission to implement HIP 2.0 in place of a Medicaid expansion called for by the federal Affordable Care Act. But CMS officials have questions about provisions that require most participants to pay a portion of the cost.

The Republican governor said he hopes the CMS renewal of the existing program bodes well for approval of the expanded proposal as well.

“Since this marks the third time the Obama administration has approved the Healthy Indiana Plan in its current form, we hope that this decision signals an openness by this administration to move forward with approval of HIP 2.0, which is built on the same principles of personal responsibility and consumer choice,” pence said.

If the state is allowed to implement HIP 2.0, as many as 350,000 more uninsured Hoosiers could be eligible to obtain coverage through the program.

Currently, HIP is available to adults who earn less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level and who do not otherwise qualify for Medicaid. HIP 2.0 would expand eligibility to adults who earn up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

By Lesley Weidenbener
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – Legislative leaders say they remain frustrated at the “dysfunctional” relationship among state education officials and will step in if the sides can’t resolve their differences – soon.

The General Assembly will convene its 2015 session with a one-day meeting on Tuesday.
Organization Day is largely ceremonial and lawmakers will adjourn after formally electing their leaders until January. The House is scheduled to convene at 1 p.m. and the Senate at 1:30 p.m.

Get the details or watch online at www.iga.in.gov

On the eve the legislature’s Organization Day for the 2015 session, House Speaker Brian Bosma said he’s concerned enough that he’s thinking about whether to pursue legislation to make the state superintendent of public instruction an appointed rather than elected position.
He acknowledged that would create a “firestorm of protests” because the current superintendent, Glenda Ritz, is a Democrat while Republicans have supermajorities in the House and Senate. But Bosma said the fighting between Ritz and the rest of the State Board of Education – all appointed by Republican Gov. Mike Pence – is unacceptable.

“This has to stop one way or another,” Bosma said. “We can’t let this go on.”

Bosma made his comments at an Indiana Chamber of Commerce legislative preview that featured a panel discussion among Republican and Democratic leaders of the General Assembly.

Chamber President Kevin Brinegar also outlined the group’s legislative priorities. On the list is eliminating the superintendent as an elected position and making it a job appointed by the governor. It’s something the chamber – and leaders in both political parties – have supported at different times in the past. But the issue has come to the forefront as Ritz, who chairs the state board, and members have battled over big issues including A-F grades for schools and small things like how to run a meeting.

“I would encourage – in fact challenge – each and every one of you to watch just one meeting of the State Board of Education and you will see how incredibly dysfunctional it is and how poorly it is serving the children and their parents of the state of Indiana,” Brinegar told chamber members who attended the panel discussion.

But Democratic leaders warned that Hoosiers won’t want to give up electing a superintendent.

“This is a person we trust who knows about education and whose sole duty is to do what’s best for education and children in our state,” said Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson. “I think that’s what people want.”

Short of eliminating the election of a superintendent, Brinegar said, the legislature should change state law so that the board picks its own chairman, rather than giving the job automatically to Ritz, who two years ago became the first Democrat to hold the office since 1971.

Since then, she’s accused Republicans of trying to undermine her authority. And Pence has even created a separate education agency that has taken over some duties from Ritz’s education department. That new agency now staffs the State Board of Education.

Legislative leaders say both sides are to blame for the morass. One year ago, at the same chamber event, Bosma and Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, were issuing similar ultimatums, promising they would step in if education leaders didn’t work out their differences. That was shortly after Ritz sued state board members, accusing them of meeting illegally without her knowledge.

Long said the relationships may have gotten a little better since then – but not much. “I’m frustrated we’re even having to discuss it right now,” he said vehemently after Monday’s event.

He said legislative intervention may be like “throwing gasoline on the fire” but he said lawmakers won’t be afraid to step in referee if necessary. He and Bosma emphasized on Monday that lawmakers are charged with setting education policy for the state – not the superintendent and not the governor.

“We may have to dictate how the board meetings are going to run,” Long said. “It needs to change on both sides for the betterment of our kids.”

Lesley Weidenbener is executive editor of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

Marilyn Odendahl for www.theindianalawyer.com

Repeatedly drawing attention to the heavily redacted record and scant information about procedures, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out a summary judgment granted to the government in a lawsuit stemming from a prison yard attack.

Charles Keller, an inmate at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after he was brutally beaten and left lying unconscious in the prison yard.

He claimed several prison employees violated mandatory regulations and orders which allowed the attack to occur. In particular, he said the intake psychologist did not examine all of his medical documents, as required by applicable regulations, before placing him in general population. According to Keller, the guards in the watchtower failed to monitor their assigned areas of the yard because, he contended, they were lazy or inattentive in violation of their post orders.

The government argued it was shielded from liability by the discretionary function exception under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It maintained all prisoner attacks fall within the exception.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana agreed and granted summary judgment to the government. However, in Charles Keller v. United States of America, 13-3113, the 7th Circuit reversed, saying the government failed to offer evidence showing its conduct was shielded by the exception.

If prison personnel acted according to policy, then the discretionary function exception applied. However, the 7th Circuit said it was unable to determine whether the employees adhered to mandatory regulation because the documents were incomplete.

The Circuit Court said the extensive redactions and scant record made it impossible to ascertain exactly what regulations and procedures applied to the intake psychologist and the prison guards. The 7th Circuit noted the District Court did not have the unredacted documents when it ruled on the government’s summary judgment motion.

“The district court’s resolution of the discovery disputes in this case resulted in a record so limited that it could not support summary judgment for the government,” Judge David Hamilton wrote for the court. “A better-developed record would have allowed the district court and this court to assess better the merits of the government’s motion for summary judgment.”