Amanda Creech
TheStatehouseFile.com

Hundreds of people gathered at the Statehouse on Thursday for a Martin Luther King Jr. celebration that included the unveiling of busts that commemorate the lives of two trailblazers.

(Washington, DC) – On Thursday, Congressman Larry Bucshon, a physician from Southern Indiana, participated in a Congressional hearing and voted to pass legislation aimed at providing his constituents with vital information regarding the federal healthcare website, Healthcare.gov.

“This federal healthcare website was developed at a huge expense to taxpayers, yet the Administration has taken the opportunity to withhold pertinent website information at every turn,” said Bucshon. “In order for us to effectively address concerns related to the Affordable Care Act, federal and state officials as well as the American people deserve to know this basic information. I’m happy we have addressed this issue with H.R. 3362.”

The legislation, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act (H.R. 3362), passed the House by a vote of 259 to 154, requires the Administration to provide weekly reporting on critical information related to the Healthcare.gov website. This information includes everything from enrollment data, security issues, technical complications, and demographic data and will be made public to state governors, state insurance commissioners, and taxpayers.

Healthcare.gov is one of the largest collections of personal information ever assembled, linking social security numbers, birth dates, and tax and other financial information of its users. One of the most discussed complications with the site has been information security and the vulnerability of this information to be accessed by identity thieves.

Bucshon participated in a hearing, Healthcare.gov: Consequences of Stolen Identity, which included an expert panel of witnesses with a wide array of experience in information security who made the case that the website is unsecure, consumer data is at risk, and the Administration should be held responsible to provide solutions that guarantee taxpayer security.

During his testimony, Bucshon told the panel, “This is about confidence the American people have in their government and whether or not their government is doing everything they can to protect their privacy. It’s not about healthcare.” Bucshon went on to say, “I was a medical doctor before and when you throw in the healthcare part of it, it becomes very personal for people. I think all of us in hearings like this and across government – in the Administration, in both political parties, need to recognize the fact that we need to do whatever we can to regain the confidence of the American people that we are protecting their personal information as best we can.”

Watch Bucshon’s full statement here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8xaFNFtk1k.

BACKGROUND:

The Hearing

More information on the hearing held today by the House Science Committee on the possibility of identity theft on Healthcare.gov can be found here –http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/2014%2001%2016%20Healthcare.gov%20Charter.pdf.

The Bill

Why is H.R. 3362 important? 

Since the flawed roll out of www.HealthCare.gov, the Administration has been averse to revealing reliable information as it relates to website or the implementation of Obamacare. For example, it took the Administration until November 13^th to release any type of enrollment statics. Even then, the Administration announced only that 106,185 individuals had selected plans and that an additional 975,407 individuals had made it through the process of applying and receiving an eligibility determination.  On December 11, 2013, the Administration announced that 258,497 individuals selected a plan.  On each occasion, the Administration has failed to break down the information – such as information identifying who is actually is enrolling, who has actually paid the first month’s premium, who is enrolling in Medicaid.  Moreover, to date, states have received little information from the Administration on the residents being covered, including those who are sick, healthy, young, old, or Medicaid-eligible.

A summary of H.R. 3362:

H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act, requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit to Congress, and to make available to state governors, state insurance commissioners, and taxpayers, weekly reports that describe the consumer interactions with healthcare.gov or any subsequent website established by the federal government for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) or receipt of premium tax credit.

The report is to include the following:

1. A state-by-state breakdown of:

• The number of unique website visits
• The number of web chat logins
• The number of individuals who create an account
• The number of individuals who enrolled in a QHP or Medicaid, including a breakdown of those individuals enrolled in Medicaid and whether the individual was previously eligible or who became eligible under Obamacare
• The number of individuals who have effectuated enrollment in a QHP through payment of the first monthly premium
• The age of individuals who have effectuate enrollment in a QHP through payment of the first monthly premium
• The number of enrollees in each zip code
• The level of coverage obtained

2. A detailed description of the problems identified with website functionality, actions taken to address these problems, identity of the contractors involved in remedying these issues, how these actions are being paid for, and the federal officials overseeing the effort.

3. A description of separate problems with the website, including

• Logging in
• Enrolling
• Transferring to state Medicaid programs
• Calculating advance premium tax credits or cost sharing reductions
• Determining eligibility for QHPs, tax credits/cost sharing reductions, Medicaid, or CHIP
• Verifying income or identity
• Transferring information to health insurance issuers
• Consumer privacy and data security

In addition, H.R. 3362 requires the Secretary, within five days of enactment, to make available to the individuals identified above a list of all navigators and certified application counselors who have been trained and certified by the exchanges. Finally, the bill requires the Secretary, within five days of enactment, to make available on healthcare.gov, or subsequent federally run website to help individuals obtain insurance, a list of all licensed agents and brokers

The West Virginia chemical plume has passed through Louisville, and the Louisville Water Co. is reporting that after carbon treatment in its Crescent Hill reservoir, the chemical can no longer be detected.

The next major cities that will see the chemical plume pass their shores are Owensboro, KY and Evansville, IN that will see their date with the spill on Monday.

The “plume” of MCHM spilled into the Elk River Jan. 9 in West Virginia, and arrived at Louisville’s Zorn Avenue intake early Friday morning. At its peak, company scientists measured the concentration at 3.5 parts per billion in river water.

Louisville Water will continue the carbon treatment at the Crescent Hill Reservoir through Sunday, she said. Staffers sniffing the raw Ohio River water noticed today that it has returned to a fishy smell, she said, after about a day of the telltale licorice odor of the chemical.

The company issued its press release about successfully managing the plume Saturday afternoon.

The CDC has said anything less than 1 part per million is safe for everyone except for pregnant women. For pregnant women, they suggested a level of less than 50 parts per billion is safe.

For West Virginians, anyway, their nightmare story is not going away. But it appears that for Louisvillians, plume-a-geddon is one for the history books.

by Judge David J. Dreyer for theindianalawyer.com

Sometimes judges face dilemmas that go beyond the rules. When the problems go past where the law stops, what happens? The endeavor of judging includes balancing the letter of the law with the conscience of the community. Oftentimes, judges can work in between the cracks and resolve a tangible issue by intangible means. But since when do judges get credit for that?

The only United States Supreme Court justice listed from Indiana is Sherman “Shay” Minton. He was a zealous New Deal defender and became famous for his “You can’t eat the Constitution” speech during his 1934 Senate campaign, when he argued that urgent human needs of the Depression outweighed any unconstitutional aspects of the New Deal.

Minton finished at the top of his class in high school (New Albany), college and law school (both Indiana University), and won a Yale scholarship for a master’s in law. He was known as an aggressive debater, a challenging intellect on public issues and an active participant in public affairs. Former President William Howard Taft, his Yale teacher, once reprobated him during a vigorous case discussion by saying, “If you don’t like the way it is interpreted, you will have to get on the Supreme Court and change it.” (Both of them took this advice.) He was a captain in World War I, a U.S. senator, aide to President Franklin Roosevelt, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and nominated to the Supreme Court by his friend Harry Truman. Yet he is consistently considered mediocre among Supreme Court justices, mainly due to his lack of notable opinions and his brief seven years on the high court. But shouldn’t Minton, like all judges, merit credit for things the statistics don’t show?

Today, the mark of the judiciary is all too often divisiveness – not because judges are necessarily at odds, but because the public is more used to seeing ideological confirmation hearings than informative discussions on jurisprudence. But when Minton was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1949, the Senate Judiciary Committee asked him to testify about his 1930s Senate views defending court restructuring. In those days, Supreme Court nominees ordinarily did not appear before Congress or have contentious confirmation hearings. So Minton refused the request by politely explaining that his judicial role would necessarily be distinguished from his previous Senate work and should not be compared. The committee quietly withdrew their request, and Minton effectively precluded the kind of partisan court confirmation fights that we now are unable to stop.

Today, popular court justices often make headlines for socializing and duck-hunting with their executive branch buddies while appeals are pending. But Minton’s low-key personal life was affected by his resentment of racial discrimination in the 1950s. His trusted African-American aide always drove with him between New Albany and Washington. On several occasions, Minton became angry and confrontational with hotel and restaurant establishments along the way who would not allow his aide to enter.

And within the high court, where neither the public nor academics know how things are really decided, Minton was known as an essential team player and peacekeeper. As a Democrat progressive senator, Minton surprised some by his inclination toward judicial restraint. Historians conclude that he carried the cause for New Deal legislation when it was needed to persuade a “conservative” 1930s court. In the 1950s, he decided that more caution was necessary to balance the emerging “liberal” justices. But a judge does not get credit for the wisdom of consensus-building.

His character and courage were most evident in the famous Brown v. Board of Education decision. As the junior justice, it fell to him to vote last. At the time, the vote appeared to be 4-4. On one hand, Minton’s visceral aversion to racial injustice was unqualified. Within private court conferences, he spoke vehemently against the effects of segregation on children and the whole country. On the other hand, his jurisprudence required a more cautionary decision. Minton reportedly cast the deciding vote for the most progressive Supreme Court ruling in history. But what statistics will never show is that he was the key justice in persuading all his colleagues to make Brown unanimous.

Like most judges, Shay Minton’s achievements were numerous, but largely unmeasured. His biographer Alan T. Nolan once wrote, “He was a man without a sense of his own importance and was utterly unable to take himself too seriously.” Today, we sure do need more people like that. Justice Felix Frankfurter once said that if Minton is not remembered as a great justice, he should always be remembered as a great colleague. What better compliment can any person have? When he died in 1965, his memorial service in Washington D.C., was conducted by none other than Thurgood Marshall, a public testament to Minton’s private significance.

Well, if we need great legal minds, there are plenty of them. But if we are hungry, we can’t eat the Constitution. We will always need good thinkers to nourish creative solutions. We should be grateful this Thanksgiving season that we will always have committed judges to solve tough problems, find the right balance, and lead us every day.•

Judge David J. Dreyer has been a judge for the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School. He is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. The opinions expressed are those of the author.