Wednesday, December 16, 2015

On Medicaid "lockout" provision, Gov. Asa Hutchinson hedges

Posted By on Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:08 PM

LOCKOUT? Hutchinson dodged questions about the Medicaid lockout, an idea he appears to be backing off from.
  • LOCKOUT? Hutchinson dodged questions about the Medicaid lockout, an idea he appears to be backing off from.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson
today once again went over the changes to the private option he plans to seek in negotiations with the feds (work referral programs, small premiums for some beneficiaries, etc.). 

For the most part, this is the same stuff we've been hearing from the governor for months, but on one issue, he may be wavering: the so-called "lockout" provision, which would punish beneficiaries subject to premiums who failed to pay by locking them out of coverage for six months. At the task force meeting today, the governor avoided the word "lockout," and he dodged questions from reporters about whether he still wants to pursue the policy. 

In a speech just last week, Hutchinson highlighted the lockout provision as an important component of the changes he was seeking, saying that beneficiaries who failed to comply with the program's requirements needed to face "consequences." However, a number of lawmakers from both parties, stakeholders, and advocates for beneficiaries have expressed concerns about the lockout. Some argued that it would unfairly punish poor people with very little disposable income; others worried about the impact on uncompensated care if the "consequence" was basically to make people uninsured. Meanwhile, it's not clear that the feds would give Arkansas permission to impose a lockout in any case. 

In his prepared remarks to the task force, Hutchinson seemed to address and echo those concerns and sounded like he was backing away from the lockout concept — although he didn't clearly say whether or not he had nixed the idea altogether: 

What do you do if they don't pay the premium? Accountability is important. But it has to be accountability that is workable, does not increase the uncompensated care for our hospitals or increase costs to the state from an administrative standpoint. To be achievable, all these waivers, we have to make our case in Washington that this fits within the constraints of the law. But then secondly we have to show that they're workable from an administrative standpoint. 

Afterward, a reporter asked Gov. Asa Hutchinson whether he was walking away from the lockout. Here is his response in full. I will leave to to readers to divine what Hutchinson is saying here: 

I said today that we need accountability in any provision that we put in so that's how I expressed what we need to do. And that's not really appropriate — you know, sometimes they use catch phrases,  and that does not really describe what we need to do as a state. Accountability is the key and I've always said incentives are better than punitive measures and you don't want to — as I said today, increase uncompensated care — so I've indicated to legislators that expressed some concern about that that we'll work through what is the right accountability for those premium requirements. 

I thought that wasn't just vague and non-responsive but actually wasn't recognizable English. So I followed up: Does that mean that the governor wants to pursue a lockout or not?

"I said what I said," he responded.  

So let me do a little reading between the lines. I think that there is a very good chance that the feds have already signaled to the governor that the lockout is a no-go. If so, the question is whether to go ahead and ask for it anyways (as the governor plans to do with other provisions likely to be vetoed by the feds, like an asset test). The reason that the governor went out of his way to avoid endorsing the lockout or even using the word today is that he has gotten pushback, both from Democratic lawmakers worried about the impact on beneficiaries and from lawmakers from both parties worried about cost-shifting and uncompensated care (Tea Party Republican Rep. Joe Farrer, for example, opposes the lockout because he's worried that providers will be left holding the bag). 

Given all of that, perhaps the governor has decided to abandon the lockout. But on the other hand, there are some conservatives (like Rep. David Meeks) who love the lockout. There is a real political appeal among the Meeks crowd to looking tough when it comes to demanding "personal responsibility" from beneficiaries. And, Farrer aside, the lockout's biggest fans are precisely the right-wing legislators who might be on the fence about whether to support the governor's continuation of the private option. 

One possible political sweet spot, then, might be to make it publicly clear that the governor is asking for a lockout provision. Hutchinson could assure Democrats by telling them not to worry because the feds are going to block it. And he could tell his right flank that he pushed for a lockout but the feds said no. 

My guess: Hutchinson hasn't decided what the best political strategy is around the lockout. So he's doing what Hutchinson often does: hedging, dodging, bobbing and weaving, buying time. 

Tags: , ,


Speaking of Health Care, Private Option

Comments (11)

Showing 1-11 of 11

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-11 of 11

Add a comment

More by David Ramsey

Readers also liked…

  • Marriage is so sacred in Arkansas people do it over and over again

    Arkansas leads the country in multiple marriages, including in the percentage who've been married three or more times. And they say it is the gay people who are ruining marriage.
    • Mar 13, 2015
  • Opposition organizes to school outsourcing bill

    Little Rock residents aren't happy about news of plan to to turnover the school district, its facilities and its tax base to private management companies for charter schools.
    • Mar 8, 2015
  • War. What is it good for? Tom Cotton has an idea

    Twenty-four hours after meddling in President Obama's talks with Iran, hawkish Sen. Tom Cotton scheduled an off-the-record meeting with defense contractors, who'd be happy to supply goods for U.S. armed incursions in the Middle East.
    • Mar 9, 2015

Most Shared

  • Hutchinson administration resists accountability in child rape case

    After a nightmarish revelation about serial rapes by a state-approved foster parent, the Hutchinson administration, from the governor on down, resist talking about how it happened.
  • Little Rock police kill man downtown

    Little Rock police responding to a disturbance call near Eighth and Sherman Streets about 12:40 a.m. killed a man with a long gun, Police Chief Kenton Buckner said in an early morning meeting with reporters.
  • From the mind of Sol LeWitt: Crystal Bridges 'Loopy Doopy': A correction

    Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art is installing Sol Lewitt's 70-foot eye-crosser "Wall Drawing 880: Loopy Doopy," waves of complementary orange and green, on the outside of the Twentieth Century Gallery bridge. You can glimpse painters working on it from Eleven, the museum's restaurant, museum spokeswoman Beth Bobbitt said
  • Ted Suhl loses another bid for new trial; faces stiff sentencing recommendation

    Ted Suhl, the former operator of residential and out-patient mental health services, has lost a second bid to get a new trial on his conviction for paying bribes to influence state Human Services Department policies. Set for sentencing Thursday, Suhl faces a government request for a sentence up to almost 20 years. He argues for no more than 33 months.
  • Football and foster kids

    It took a football stadium to lay bare Republican budget hypocrisy in Arkansas.

Most Viewed

Most Recent Comments



© 2016 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation