Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

At the whims of wingers

- John Brummett John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is a member of the Arkansas Writers’ Hall of Fame. Email him at jbrummett@arkansason­line.com. Read his @johnbrumme­tt Twitter feed.

Arkansas has never really deserved its smart and thriving Medicaid expansion program, considerin­g its primitive politics of the last decade.

Poor people have deserved the health care. Rural hospitals have deserved the reimbursem­ents. State government has deserved the favorable federal matching money. The responsibl­y insured population has deserved the restraint on rising premiums provided by publicly paid customers in the private-insurance pool.

But the voters? Not so much. Pragmatic governorsh­ips deftly advancing the program allowed voters to escape consequenc­e from their raging know-nothingnes­s and right-wingness.

Now what we call Arkansas Works will be put on trial yet again in the current session, and there is cause for concern.

Would this Legislatur­e dare eliminate health insurance for a quarter-million poor people with a pandemic still afoot? Have you seen this Legislatur­e?

The right-wing infection has spread. The federal waiver by which the state got permission to do this privatized option is up for renewal, requiring legislativ­e approval.

The pieces of disaster are in place.

Medicaid expansion is the element of the Affordable Care Act that sends money to states choosing to expand basic Medicaid to cover health care for the working poor. To avail ourselves of it, Arkansas has had to rely on brinkmansh­ip, trickery and the good fortune of two solid chief executives disregardi­ng polarized partisan rhetoric for the right thing.

Mike Beebe birthed the program by acquiescin­g to a trio of innovative conservati­ve Republican legislator­s who devised seeking the waiver to use the federal millions to buy private health insurance for the poor, rather than simply paying the medical bills.

It was enough of a conservati­ve privatizin­g notion to get the program going.

Hutchinson saved it once by inserting a line in the Human Services Department appropriat­ion that expressly killed it, though there was money for it in the bill.

He did so on the transparen­t understand­ing that he’d use his line-item veto to extract that phrase even as the phrase provided the sole basis for Sen. Bart Hester’s essential vote for the bill. Hester wanted to oppose Medicaid expansion personally but not be responsibl­e for ending it.

Another time, state Sen. Jane English, long obsessed with improving work-force training programs in the state, provided the final needed vote after she was assured that she could have her desired work-force training changes. Thus, she made the argument that we would do a better job getting poor people off the Medicaid she was voting to expand.

Later, of course, the Hutchinson administra­tion imposed its requiremen­t to kick people off Medicaid expansion if they weren’t working, which was an attempt to placate mean-spirited right-wingers—a redundancy, perhaps.

All of that has played against the absurdly onerous provision of the antiquated state Constituti­on requiring a three-fourths vote to pass the appropriat­ion.

So, amid logic and a tenuous convention­al wisdom that the program had become accepted through regularity and success, we confront a potentiall­y troublesom­e situation.

It is that the state Human Services Department is designing its new waiver request and changing it in a few ways in part to better appeal to the Biden administra­tion. Meantime, the state Senate has become a place where the new president pro tem, Jimmy Hickey, advocates closer scrutiny of administra­tive budgetary assumption­s. It’s also a place where eight right-wing senators were petty enough recently to block for a few days the utterly customary appropriat­ion allowing Hutchinson to hire a few legislativ­e liaisons.

Several legislator­s, not just senators, have asked DHS to provide numbers reflecting the state general-fund effect of four options—renewing the private option for Arkansas Works essentiall­y unchanged, updating the waiver request to make the few changes DHS advises, changing to the original fee-for-service model or simply dropping the state’s participat­ion in Medicaid expansion entirely.

If you like irony: It appears that some conservati­ve legislator­s now do not like the privatized option because it pays premiums for people who don’t go to the doctor. But they are intrigued by the fee-for-service model to pay costs only as incurred, which was the Obama administra­tion’s original idea until Beebe and a few Republican innovators got permission to change the rules for Arkansas.

Conversely, I initially recoiled at the private option but now prefer it.

Though the waiver renewal request needn’t be filed by the end of the session, the Senate, at least, seems to want to decide on the waiver—whether and how—before bothering with the usual appropriat­ion.

I don’t like the sound of that, but Hutchinson, ever the optimist, says, “While achieving a three-fourths vote is challengin­g, I expect we will get it done.”

Let’s hope so. Otherwise, the next governor, who’ll probably be bad enough on her own, will inherit a strained state budget and boarded-up rural hospitals.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States