‘Indiana needs a HIP replacement', social services secretary says about insurance program

Mitch Roob, secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, presents to the State Budget Committee on June 18, 2025. (Whitney Downard/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
In his second tenure leading Indiana's most expensive state agency, Family and Social Services Administration Secretary Mitch Roob wants to significantly change Indiana's insurance program for low- to middle-income Hoosiers. But ongoing negotiations in Washington D.C. could undermine or fundamentally alter the third iteration of the Healthy Indiana Plan, otherwise known as HIP.
Some congressional changes could be prohibitively expensive for the state, coming on the heels of a bleak revenue forecast projecting $2 billion less in Indiana's coffers over the next two years.
'This is a five-alarm fire for us,' said Roob, who introduced the first version of HIP while he was the FSSA secretary under former Gov. Mitch Daniels.
In a sit-down with the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Roob previewed a Wednesday presentation before the State Budget Committee introducing HIP 3.0, including work requirements, provider taxes and wellness incentives. But the final details can't be determined until Congress agrees on President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which could be approved in the coming weeks.
GOP senators warn mega-bill's new Medicaid cuts will hurt rural hospitals
Work requirements for able-bodied adults on HIP were fiercely debated in the legislative session earlier this year, ultimately advancing with the support of the Republican supermajority. But the process would take months, requiring Indiana to submit a modified waiver for federal approval before it could be enacted.
That timeline could be shortened under the latest version of the bill, which would force all states to adopt such regulations.
'Once the big, beautiful bill passes, we will move forward as quickly as we can with that,' Roob said about work requirements.
Other states have stumbled in their rollout of such conditions, including Arkansas and Georgia. Roob said details of Indiana's plan would largely hinge on Congress' actions and pointed to support from Indiana Gov. Mike Braun.
'He believes in work requirements; he doesn't believe in work requirements to kick people off of the program,' said Roob. 'He believes that Medicaid ought to be a program that incentivizes individuals to work — not disincentivizes them to do so.'
While Indiana's work requirements would have allowed an exception for parents in general, Congress now proposes limiting that exemption to parents of children who aren't teens. More than 712,000 Hoosiers rely on HIP for their health coverage, according to a May enrollment report.
Other portions of the bill threaten to undo Indiana's program, particularly its cap on state provider taxes, according to Roob. The Senate has proposed a cap of 3.5% on the levy, which applies to hospitals and managed care entities. A higher tax means the state can leverage more federal dollars.
But Indiana uses the maximum allowed tax of 6% on hospitals, known as a hospital assessment fee, to fund its obligation for HIP. Those taxes — along with a portion of the cigarette tax — pay for the entire program, meaning that no general fund dollars need to be dedicated to HIP.
'That's how we pay for the Healthy Indiana Plan,' Roob said. 'If (Congress' proposal is) signed into law, this would require the state of Indiana to significantly roll back eligibility in the Healthy Indiana Plan.
'Not because we want to — because we have no match.'
Indiana is responsible for 10% of the costs while the federal government picks up the tab for the remainder. However, under its current waiver, Indiana could be on the hook if the hospital assessment fee is cut and would need to come up with the difference. Roob said he was working with Indiana's congressional delegation to provide states explicit authority to change their plans in a later version of the bill.
This rate cap would also apply to any provider tax levies on managed care entities, which oversee several of Indiana's Medicaid programs, including services offered under the divisive PathWays for Aging waiver. Indiana submitted a plan to tax managed care entities earlier this month based on the plans of other states, such as Ohio and Illinois, which could net the state $865.8 million.
But Congress could invalidate that proposal by prohibiting that type of tax, which isn't uniform and varies by provider type, in favor of something more equal across the board.
'It is not law yet, so we are racing to try to get this approved,' said Roob. 'I view our prospects of getting this done as not quite as good as the Pacers winning the series.'
Portions of the proposal in Congress would require copays and premiums for certain Medicaid enrollees, something that was halted in Indiana by a federal judge last year. If allowed, Roob said the state would 'likely' bring that back — though he said the state was seeking more 'explicit authority' to implement cost-sharing requirements in the final version of the bill.
Undoubtedly, such a move would be challenged in the courts.
But Roob said Hoosiers on HIP could reduce such charges by meeting certain wellness guidelines, such as preventative care check-ups. Women getting regular pap smears, for example, would lower their cost-sharing obligations.
'And while we recognize that that won't save Indiana much money in that particular year, it may save that woman from having cervical cancer,' Roob said. 'So it is the governor's desire to 'Make Indiana Healthy Again,' and part of that is to incentivize changes in behavior.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CBS News

9 minutes ago

• CBS News

Former Detroit home of Rosa Parks in line for historic district designation

A proposal is pending for the former Detroit home of Civil Rights Movement activists Rosa and Raymond Parks to be named a local historic district. The Detroit City Council Planning and Economic Development Standing Committee will hold a public hearing to consider the proposal. The designation is intended to honor the flat in the 3200 block of Virginia Park Street where Civil Rights activists Rosa and Raymond Parks lived for 27 years. "Their activism in Detroit helped shape the Civil Rights Movement," the Detroit Historic Designation Advisory Board said on its social media post. A public hearing, which is part of the designation process, will begin at 10:35 a.m. June 26 at the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center on Woodward Avenue. Detroit's local historic districts are meant to be associated with people or events that are a significant part of Detroit's history, or have artistic or historical significance. Once a local historic district is established for a site, any exterior alterations to the building must go through the Historic District Commission. Rosa Parks, who was already active in the Civil Rights Movement, became known for her refusal to follow the Jim Crow-era laws in Montgomery, Alabama. Specifically, she refused to give up her seat on a bus and move to the back of the vehicle on Dec. 1, 1955. Her arrest in that incident helped spark the Montgomery bus boycott. After the boycott, Rosa and Raymond Parks moved to Hampton, Virginia, and then settled in Detroit. He died in 1977. She died in 2005.

Medscape

9 minutes ago

• Medscape

EGFR+ NSCLC: Experts Weigh Risk vs Reward at ASCO 2025

This transcript has been edited for clarity. Coral Olazagasti, MD: Hello. My name is Coral Olazagasti, and I'm a thoracic oncologist at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami. Joining me today is my friend and colleague, Maria Velez, a clinical instructor at UCLA, and also my other friend and colleague, Ana Velázquez Mañana, who's an assistant professor of medicine at UCSF. Today we are super excited because we are speaking about the ASCO 2025 Annual Meeting here in Chicago. We just came out from the oral abstracts for the metastatic setting for non-small cell lung cancer and we want to share some of the data that we learned. We want to start the discussion here today about EGFR -mutant disease in the second-line setting. We're going to start with Maria. Do you want to tell us a little bit about the HERTHENA-Lung02 study? Maria A. Velez, MD, MS: Sure. HERTHENA-Lung02 was a study that evaluated HER3-DXd, which is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), in the second-line setting for patients with previously treated EGFR -sensitizing mutations. It was an open-label study where patients received either the HER3-DXd or the investigator's choice chemotherapy, and the primary endpoint was median progression-free survival. The results showed that the median progression-free survival for patients who received HER3-DXd was 5.8 months whereas the median for the chemotherapy arm was 5.4 months. Even though it was a statistically significant difference, it was not a very clinically meaningful difference, with a huge implication that 100% of the patients in this study had treatment-related adverse events and some patients experienced interstitial lung disease (ILD). All in all, taking these data into account, even though there's a huge need in the treatment landscape for second-line EGFR -mutant patients, I think this ADC did not really show a substantial enough clinically meaningful benefit and had a large amount of toxicity. Olazagasti: Not to say that this study didn't show any overall survival (OS) benefit. We're talking about a drug that's not really giving patients a longer life and is also giving many side effects, like you mentioned — a large amount of discontinuation due to ILD, and so much toxicity without that benefit there. I think we'll table that regimen for now. Do you agree? Velez: I agree. Ana I. Velázquez Mañana, MD, MSc: I agree. Clearly, it's disappointing to see the results of not beating chemotherapy in the second-line setting, but I do think that potentially there is a role in the third line or afterwards. We know that patients are going to be getting chemotherapy and amivantamab in the second-line setting. There is a need for further drugs and interventions in the third line if patients don't have other AGAs [actionable oncogenic alterations] or other drivers that we can use targeted therapies for. I am hesitant to give up completely on the drug. I do agree it's quite toxic and very disappointing to unfortunately see these results in the second line. Olazagasti: I agree. Moving on to the next study — Ana, do you want to talk to us about the SACHI study? Velazquez Mañana: The SACHI study was an open-label, randomized trial of savolitinib plus osimertinib vs platinum doublet chemotherapy in patients who, post EGFR TKI, had progressed in the second line and had a MET amplification. We know that MET amplifications are an extremely common mechanism of resistance to EGFR TKI-targeted therapies. Interestingly, in this study, which brings a little bit of heterogeneity, they included patients treated with first- and second-generation EGFR TKIsas well as those treated with third-generation TKIs like osimertinib, which would be our standard of care. They did look to make sure those were T790M negative, those treated with earlier generations. Interestingly, the results on the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) showed a benefit of 8.2 months in the combination vs 4.5 months in patients treated with doublet chemotherapy. That [benefit] was maintained in both patients treated with earlier-generation TKIs as well as those treated with third-generation TKIs. It also had some efficacy data and overall response rates of 63.2% vs 36.2%. Definitely, as we know, using a MET-targeted therapy is helpful. We already know from the United States that they use an approval in the second line of chemotherapy and amivantamab. That approach leads to responses in patients after EGFR TKIs. I think it's an interesting approach, obviously, to think of sparing patients from chemo in that second line and combining two TKIs, but we have to see if that is better than chemo with amivantamab would've been, which would've been our standard of care here. With savolitinib, we know what the adverse events are. It's a drug that's been approved in China now for years. It's not used in the United States, but I think, based on these studies, it's interesting to see what other studies will come in the future and whether this is a potential approach for us to use. Olazagasti: Definitely it's interesting. I feel like EGFR is the cool kid on the block now. We have so many options and so many studies looking into it, and it's just interesting to see what the future holds and what else is going to come into play. Continuing down the line of the EGFR second-line studies, I'm going to talk about the OptiTROP-Lung03 study. This study uses sacituzumab tirumotecan. It's a phase 3 study of EGFR mutants. Patients had to receive not only TKI but also platinum therapy, and they were randomized into using sacituzumab tirumotecan — we're going to call it sac-TMT because this is very hard to pronounce — vs docetaxel. The primary endpoints of the study were overall response rates, and secondary endpoints were PFS and OS. The study showed that the overall response rate was 45.1% vs 15.6% in the docetaxel arm. Also, there was a PFS benefit. The median PFS was 6.9 compared to only 2.8 in the chemo arm. Even though the median OS is still ongoing, with the median not reached yet, at 12 months there was an OS of 72.8% compared to 43.2%. I think this drug has been approved in China, and I know that in December it received breakthrough FDA designation in the United States. We'll see, again, what the future holds. Do you have any thoughts about this? Velazquez Mañana: We've been seeing from the different TROP2 ADCs that clearly they have a role in EGFR -driven lung cancer. I think it's exciting to see another one. Unfortunately, there are drugs that have many toxicities, so they are hard to manage for patients. Again, on this one I am a little bit conflicted with what the comparator arm is, and one that not necessarily would be our current standard of care. So we are having a large amount of new development and newer drugs, but because of how long it takes to run trials and the newer approvals that come, it's hard to make comparisons and decisions of which ones you should select and the timing of them. Hopefully, we'll get more data in the future. Olazagasti: I think that's the general consensus. And the dilemma that we have right now in the EGFR space, because we have so many approved options, is that there's really not a great sequential treatment. It's not really a one-size-fits-all approach. Some people use osimertinib alone in the first line. Some people use the FLAURA2 study with osimertinib and chemo. Some people prefer the MARIPOSA regimen. These are all pretty decent options, and so bringing these other drugs into the second- and third-line setting, how do we do the sequencing? I think that's really where the dilemma and the problems are going to come about. Institutions may have different orders and different preferences, but I think in these situations it's also important to take each patient into consideration individually because, like we have already mentioned, it's not only about the treatment and then the benefits, but also the side-effect profile. This one in particular didn't have any ILDs compared to in HERTHENA where they had a high rate, but we have to really look into toxicities because it's not only survival for patients and PFS; it's really about quality of life, too. With this great discussion, I think we're going to wrap up for today. Thank you to my friends and colleagues for joining me. Again, this is Coral Olazagasti, speaking from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting here in Chicago.

Gizmodo

10 minutes ago

• Gizmodo

Troubling Case Links Vaping to Aggressive Lung Cancer

Vaping might be safer than cigarette smoking, but they carry their own health risks. A New Jersey man's electronic cigarette habit likely contributed to his fast-spreading, fatal lung cancer, his doctors say. Doctors at the AtlantiCare Regional Medical Center in Atlantic City detailed the tragic death this month in the American Journal of Case Reports. The 51-year-old former smoker and longtime vaper developed an aggressive lung cancer that killed him just months after diagnosis. Though a causative link isn't confirmed, the authors say more studies are needed to figure out vaping's cancer risk. According to the report, the man visited a local hospital sometime in 2020 after he started to cough up blood. During the prior month, he had also been experiencing symptoms of weight loss, chest discomfort, and shortness of breath. Tests soon revealed that he had a form of non-small cell lung carcinoma, specifically determined to be squamous cell carcinoma. The cancer had already started to spread and break off into pieces that reached the heart, making surgery unfeasible. He was discharged and quickly placed on chemotherapy, but to no avail. The man's health continued to rapidly deteriorate and he died three months after his diagnosis. The man had a history of cigarette smoking, the equivalent of 10 pack-years (meaning he smoked roughly a pack a day for 10 years). But he told the doctors he quit in 2009 and switched exclusively to e-cigarettes for the next 11 years. He regularly received lung and heart check-ups, and his last chest X-ray two years earlier was normal, suggesting his cancer only recently emerged. Because of the aggressive and non-responsive nature of the cancer, his relatively young age (most cases are caught in people over 65) and the lack of recent cigarette use, the doctors suspect that vaping probably played a part in his death. 'While causality cannot be established, the case highlights a potential association between [vaping] and malignancy,' they wrote. People have gotten seriously sick from vaping before, though usually under specific circumstances. In 2019, for instance, a mysterious lung disease that affected thousands of people in the U.S. was ultimately traced back to toxic additives primarily used in THC-containing vapes (while the initial outbreak did subside, these cases still appear occasionally). Other chemicals used to flavor vapes have also been tied to rare lung illnesses. But this appears to be one of the first case reports to explicitly link vaping and lung cancer. Other isolated reports have found a connection between vaping and mouth cancer. Some studies have also suggested that people who both vape and smoke (so-called dual users) have a higher risk of lung cancer than people who only smoke. At the same time, the overall research to date doesn't appear to show a significant added risk of lung cancer among people who only vape and have never smoked. And studies have also long found that vaping is less harmful in general than smoking. Given that this case is only one anecdote, the doctors aren't pushing for formal changes to screening guidelines just yet. But they are calling for further studies to untangle the unique dangers that vaping may pose.