Skip to main content

The Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP) 2.0 - Amendment

DateResponseResponse
Jun 14th 2017 7:15 am Response: #228245 The work requirement is unnecessary and burdensome.
Jun 14th 2017 8:17 am Response: #228249 I would like for our government representatives to consider the impact to individuals in very specific situations with this amendment. While I do not require marketplace insurance or HIP, I know a number of individuals both professionally and personally that do. As a Higher Education professor, I mentor and counsel traditional and non-traditional students regarding the best plans for their academic success. I have had a number of students whom I advise that are in situations regarding an appeal process due to not prioritizing their mental health needs. I can bear witness to the truth that if an individual is struggling with a mental health disease or traumatic event, that person is highly at risk for academic failure or at the very least not performing to their fullest potential.

Additionally, personally, a grandparent in our family is waiting on an organ transplant. If the spouse, who is also acting as watchful caregiver and requires to be present 24-7, were required to be seeking employment to be be eligible for HIP 2.0 this would be impossible. This loved family member's extreme and life-saving health need would supersede the spouse's desire for their own healthcare plan. This then puts the spouse (caregiver) in jeopardy if a fluke accident or other emergency would occur.

I believe that it is time that the person is placed before the need for systematic justification of eligibility. Without additional clarification, this provision only works to make meeting requirements for "affordable health care" less accessible. Please consider the professional opinions of the education community and any documented family health circumstances. Providing the means for encouraging work ethic and pursuit, while also acknowledging the most appropriate plan for the individual is the best ideal. I hope that this balance can be achieved.
Jun 14th 2017 8:46 am Response: #228253 Work requirements should apply only to able-bodied adults, not to those who are elderly, children, full time students, or too disabled to work.
Jun 14th 2017 8:48 am Response: #228257 Work requirements shoukd not apply to persons who are caregivers to children or seriously ill family members.
Jun 14th 2017 2:08 pm Response: #228261 This proposed amendment puts some of our most vulnerable populations in jeopardy by imposing an illogical and unjustified work requirement adding additional hurdles and levels of bureaucracy for maintaining the benefits they need to live. We, as a people, should not be demanding our weakest members justify their existence and qualify for compassion by contributing to the economy or proving - again and again - that they are unable to do so. The government should be valuing all lives, not just those who can work.
Jun 14th 2017 4:31 pm Response: #228265 I realize the CMS director thinks Indiana is the bee's knees since she helped craft our program for the disastrous Gov McDaniels, but before you go giving Indiana free rein, please do a Google search on the problems beneficiaries have been having with the HIP iterations. Also, I work in the health care advocacy field, and I can tell you that Indiana is still not ready for prime time since the abortive privatization of Indiana welfare programs under Daniels. The only reason attorneys are not complaining to the regional CMS office is that FSSA responds to them through special email addresses not known to the general public. The error rate here in Medicaid program eligibility is horrendous. So before you cut Indiana any more slack, how about making them step up and fix the programs they have?!
Jun 14th 2017 5:47 pm Response: #228269 I disapprove of the proposed work requirements for Indiana's HIP 2.0 because they do not take into consideration reasons people may not be able fulfill them, such as 1) lack of consistent childcare (before and after school, during school breaks, when a child is ill, or during late working shifts) since most low-wage and entry jobs do not offer time off for family needs; 2) lack of transportation to get to and from a job, especially for late working shifts when few buslines are available; and 3) seemingly minor physical or mental/emotional problems that do not qualify as disabilities yet limit a person's functionality - e.g. inability to stand or sit for long periods, anger management issues, or lower intelligence or social skills.

A problem with the Gateway to Work program is its intensity and necessary time commitment. I know a person who could not participate because he had to be available to drive his partner to and from her job and for childcare - at least one of them has a job. Indiana should make adjustments to this good program so more people can participate.

Another problem is that although unemployment rates are low, not everyone is employed - I know many who are searching unsuccessfully for a job. Also, many jobs have limited and/or irregular hours. To remove a person's access to health care because they can't find or maintain consistent employment for the required time is to punish them unreasonably. It will just push them further into the poverty cycle of poor health and possibly homelessness.

Demand that Indiana use Medicaid as it was intended, to help people get healthcare, not punish them for being unsuccessful.
Jun 14th 2017 9:09 pm Response: #228273 I believe there should be a work requirement. As an employee, I have to pay for part of my insurance coverage so those who get it for "free" should either be working, looking for work, or in school unless a disability keeps them from finding employment.
Jun 15th 2017 5:05 am Response: #228277 Many people are working already and many are disabked. Adding this requirement adds additional adminstrative stress to a system that is already struggling to keep up with administrative needs. I do not think this is necessary or a good use of funds. I know many single mom's who want to work but have special need children. They cannot go to work or hold a job because finding a job that is flexible enough to meet the needs of a special needs child, including time off when school is out,is impossible.
Jun 15th 2017 9:30 am Response: #228281 Good health care for Hoosiers, all Hoosiers, benefits everyone who lives in the state. We all pay for health care in some way, whether through escalating insurance rates, doctor fees or higher prescription costs. Low-income Hoosiers pay too. Poor health is a drain on family resources. Family wage earners miss work, can't attend their children's school activities, and spend what little resources they have on over the counter,costly medications that mostly don't work because the condition hasn't been properly diagnosed. Access to physician care saves money in the long run by targeting treatment through proper diagnosis. I am a HIP 2.0 recipient. I have been classified "medically frail" due to years of battling high blood pressure, arthritis and depression. I was denied insurance when I was working and could afford it,due to pre-existing conditions. The exact words of the agent were "There's no way my company will write a policy for you." I am a college-educated former small-business owner. Not everyone on public assistance is a "slacker"' As a matter of fact, most of us DO work in some way, whether working at a low-paying retail job, caring for grandchildren while the parents work, or caring for an elderly parent, like I do. EVERYONE DESERVES GOOD HEALTH. This work requirement ignores the reality of life for low-income Hoosiers, and puts another barrier between us and good health.
First pagePrevious page Page
of 7 Next pageLast page