Skip to main content

The Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP) 2.0 - Amendment

Aug 23rd 2017 6:20 pm Response: #310441 Why would a person who is so poor to qualify for medicaid choose not to be employed? SNAP and TANF have work requirements. Who are these people who are not working by choice? I would guess they can not work or can not find employment. These are the people you want to lose medicaid coverage?
Aug 23rd 2017 12:02 pm Response: #310425 Studies have already shown that most people on medicaid who can work do work. They need no incentive to seek employment because who would chose to have zero income and be poor? Seriously?
All work requirements do is kick sick people who can't work off the expansion. Is that the ultimate goal? What about people who live in areas with no transportation and no places to even find employment? What is the defintion of medically frail? What if a person looks healthy but has an invisible disability? Or not yet approved for disability? Or taking care of family? You see, these are real world scenarios that only the poor face.
Aug 22nd 2017 8:48 pm Response: #310405 There are many people on medicaid expansion who are genuinely disabled. Disability applications for SSI have decreased because disabled people can now get coverage on the expansion without having to apply for disability. Work requirements are counter productive and any suggestion that they are not punitive is ridiculous. Work requirements will be costly to administer and cover fewer people. If anyone can explain how covering fewer people at a higher cost is better, please do.
Aug 1st 2017 9:23 am Response: #231389 I am a SSDI receipient and work part time to supplement my income. I am over 60 yrs of age.I fall under the State of Indianas' extended exemption plan of (MWED) Medicade Works for Employees with Disabilities! So why am I still receiving request for payment from MWED)?
Jul 31st 2017 12:10 pm Response: #230501 Families USA comments on the Indiana HIP 2.0 amendment.
Jul 25th 2017 5:22 pm Response: #229065 The AGES of the beneficiaries MUST be considered BEFORE REQUIRING a person getting medicaid benefits to have to go to work to get benefits. Children and elderly people, for example, have either not had any job experience OR have already PAID-INTO the system for their entire working lives...both age groups should never have to go out to work to get these benefits. REQUIRING disabled people to get employment makes NO SENSE and is cruel and harsh...also mothers of young children, or caregivers of young children and/or elderly relatives, must stay at home to care for those for whom they are responsible. The employment requirement is just a mean-spirited and uncaring notion made by those who do not know what it means to suffer, to have to sell everything they own just to have money for short, it goes back to the days of forced labor camps and child labor and is extremely unfair to those who have worked all of their lives and now, in order to get benefits for which they've already paid with every paycheck they have ever earned, is cruel and unusual and uncaring punishment for the "crime" of being too young or too old or too disabled to go out and "just get a job." Having suffered the prolonged illness and financial total drain of all of my family's resources when I was a child, I find the idea of facing the same situation as an elderly person devastating, especially after working all of one's life and having a portion of my paycheck pay for medicaid insurance. If one bought insurance from an insurance company but could not collect on the policy without having to go out and work for them all over again, one would surely think THAT to be an insane idea. Benefits for children should not be denied to them either if a parent must work and cannot be with them instead. Whoever put this idea up for consideration must be either very healthy, childless, or hate their mothers and fathers! SERIOUSLY. Having to go to work for less than minimum wage as a twelve year old child was bad enough when my family had no insurance and my father was paralyzed by a stroke for a year before dying. Having to face the same challenges as an elderly person NOW, AGAIN, thinking about having to go to work when one is very old to get benefits they worked for all of their lives when a spouse is ill or when they are ill, seems hatefully cruel and insane. This idea keeps popping up and should NOT be fought against every time it does. This REQUIREMENT is a terrible idea.
Jul 25th 2017 2:39 pm Response: #229061 Work requirements and co pays in HIP 2.0 will cost the state more to administer and cover less people. Can anyone explain how this is good for Indiana?

How does this promote the objectives of 1115 medicaid waivers, or medicaid at all? There is nothing innovative in HIP 2.0.

This fanatasy that those who aren't working on medicaid expansion are doing so by choice is ridiculous! Most that aren't working are in poor health, disabled, retired, or can't find a job.
Jul 24th 2017 10:11 am Response: #229037 In my capacity as Member of Congress for Indiana’s 7th Congressional District, I addressed a letter and a series of questions to CMS Administrator Verma on June 2, 2017. While I supported HIP 2.0’s original extension request, I strongly oppose the addition of a work requirement.

The letter, which is attached, expresses my concerns with the May 24, 2017 Amendment Request to HIP’s Extension Application, and urges CMS to consider the dramatic consequences of introducing a work requirement into HIP 2.0. I look forward to a response from CMS that addresses these questions, and urge CMS to incorporate these concerns into its evaluation of the proposal.
Jul 19th 2017 4:12 pm Response: #229025 I do not support the work requirements for continued enrollment in the Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP) 2.0. If Medicaid enrollees were able to work jobs that would pay for or supply medical insurance aside from Medicaid, they no doubt would. Most of the individuals using Medicaid are persons with disabilities, children, single parents, and others who are able to find or perform work that would otherwise provide these benefits.

Since the amendment claims it would issue exemptions for some of these individuals anyway, I see no reason to continue with the amendment. It is a needless burden on a complex system.
Jul 19th 2017 12:11 pm Response: #229021 Affordable, good-quality health care should not be tied to any other requirements/conditions. Some people may be too sick to work enough hours to meet a work requirement, but not sick enough to be exempt from a work requirement. In addition, this would create just more red tape and hoops to jump through, as well as being a waste of money.
First pagePrevious page Page
of 7 Next pageLast page