Committee votes down Bullock’s Medicaid expansion
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
By Michael Wright
Community News Service
UM School of Journalism
HELENA — House Bill 249, Gov. Bullock’s Medicaid expansion bill, was given a “do not pass” recommendation by the House Human Services committee, effectively killing the bill. That means the bill won’t be debated by the full House unless 60 representatives vote to do so.
Democrats on the committee objected to the move, alleging it was mere “political shenanigans” by the majority party. But the committee chair, Rep. Art Wittich, R-Bozeman, dismissed their claim. The committee confirmed the “do not pass” with a 10-7 vote.
The hearing filled the Old Supreme Court chambers, and testimony ran into the hours of the early evening.
The bill would accept additional federal money available under the Affordable Care Act and expand Medicaid coverage to people earning as much as 138 percent of the federal poverty level.
The bill is aimed at filling a coverage gap that currently exists between those who are eligible for Medicaid and those who are able to buy insurance on the exchange.
There are two other bills sponsored by Republicans that expand Medicaid in some form. House Bill 455, sponsored by Rep. Nancy Ballance, R-Hamilton, is aimed at covering veterans, the disabled and poor parents. It doesn’t accept the available federal funds, and is estimated to cover about 10,000 people. That bill is awaiting a vote of the full house.
Lee Newspapers reported late last week that Sen. Ed Buttrey, R-Great Falls, is working on a third plan, one that would accept the additional federal money but would include mechanisms meant to help people get off of Medicaid.
Backers of Bullock’s plan told personal stories and urged the panel to support accepting the federal funding and expand eligibility.
Clergymen, doctors and others spoke in support as well. Some said expansion would help veterans and Native Americans get coverage, others said it would help rural hospitals stay open by reducing the amount of uncompensated care they have to provide.
After nearly three hours of supporting testimony, opponents got their chance. Some said it was federal overreach.
Opponent Ed Argenbright said that because the money comes with federal guidelines it shouldn’t be accepted. Argenbright, a former education official, said he’d had experience with federal education mandates that were tied to funding.
“The mandates that came with those dollars stayed with us. The dollars dried up,” Argenbright said.
