Valley delegation defends Medicaid lawsuit

WASILLA — Valley legislators largely echoed comments made by other legislators defending a Medicaid expansion lawsuit brought against Gov. Bill Walker.

The Legislative Council, a 14-member body, voted 10-1 last week to appropriate $450,000 to sue Gov. Walker over this plans to expand Medicaid in Alaska. The council has two members from the Valley, both of whom voted to bring the lawsuit: Alaska Rep. Mark Neuman (R–Big Lake) and Sen. Charlie Huggins (R-Wasilla).

Neuman said the central issue of the lawsuit isn’t Medicaid at all, but rather whether or not the governor’s office can unilaterally appropriate federal funds without legislative approval.

“Let’s make something clear: Medicaid is the issue that happens to be the topic that will be affected by the lawsuit,” he said. “But in my view, the lawsuit is more about the separation of powers and the ability of the Legislature — as the appropriating body — to make the call on how funds are accepted and expended.”

That was also the theme of a press conference given by legislators shortly after the vote authorizing the lawsuit. The Legislative Council’s lone dissenting voter on the subject, Alaska Rep. Sam Kito III (D-Juneau), said the issue did not justify the expense.

“My opposition was I didn’t believe that we needed to spend $450,000 of Alaskans’ money on a lawsuit where the state is suing itself,” he said. “There are many other ways we could have resolved that issue.”

Sen. Huggins did not return calls seeking comment either Monday or Friday.

The central legal question, according to a briefing on the subject prepared by Alaska Attorney General Craig Richards, is whether the group included in expansion under Obamacare constitutes a required category under federal law. If the new enrollees are a required group, Alaska law says they must be included. The same section of the law also mandates legislative approval for Medicaid expansion to any groups outside of those defined by the law (“required groups” are one such example). A 2012 Supreme Court ruling — National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius — adds an additional degree of complication: it eliminated penalties for states that didn’t expand Medicaid, while leaving other portions of the law unchanged.

“The Court did not strike down the new required category, but instead, struck down the penalty for not complying with it,” Richards wrote.

Expansion opponents — like Alaska Rep. Wes Keller (R-Houston) — generally interpret the same decision as applying to all sections of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“The Supreme Court has pretty clearly said otherwise,” he said.

Neuman, Keller, and Rep. Lynn Gattis (R-Wasilla) repeated their assertion that Medicaid reform should play a large role over whether or not to expand the program.

“Well, I think it really needs reform before anything happens,” Keller said. “There’s a lot of issues within Medicaid, like a lot of things that’s in government, if you don’t deal with them, they’re just going to stay there and persist.”

Gattis, who banded with other members of the Republican-controlled finance committee to issue a press release in support of the suit, accused the media of missing the point of the lawsuit.

“I think the press has either missed it on purpose, or missed it,” she said. “There are three distinct branches of government and that is very healthy, not only for Alaska, but for our nation, but we’ll speak about Alaska and our constitution. And whenever we wobble over to the other branch, and we’re not in our distinct area, that’s not healthy for Alaskans.

“So I think this is a bigger statement, whether it’s Medicaid expansion, whether it’s this governor, whether it’s another governor,” she said.

The lawsuit was unfortunate, Keller said.

“Lawsuits are never – what do I want to say? – the warm fuzzies here,” he said. “We want to and intend to work positively with the governor and toward our common concerns.”

Nevertheless, Keller said he also felt a court case was necessary.

“Either the constitution gives the appropriation responsibility to the Legislature, or it doesn’t,” he said. “Because of the fact that not only is that in question – whether he’s really authorized to do this — but also we have a very specific law that says if you’re going to expand Medicaid, it needs Legislative approval.”

The outcome of the lawsuit — a preliminary injunction hearing was expected this week — also depends on how officials decide to proceed, Keller said.

“My guess is — and nobody can predict these things — is that the governor will reconsider and let it go, too,” he said. “If I’m right, I’m pretty confident that it’d be a lot of wasted money if he didn’t back down. I just suspect he’ll be considering it anyway. I wouldn’t be surprised, let’s put it that way.”

Walker stuck to his guns, saying 20,000 people would be affected by the expansion, that it would save the state $100 million and infuse the state with $1 billion in the first six years.

“As governor, I have the legal authority and responsibility to accept health care benefits that are 100 percent federally funded. We will continue to work with the Legislature and the public on Medicaid redesign and reform efforts,” he said.

Contact Brian O’Connor at 352-2269, brian.oconnor@frontiersman.com, or on Twitter @reporterbriano.