Gov. Butch Otter’s state-based health insurance exchange is turning to the federal government for assistance, as the board of directors seeks to meet an Oct. 1 start-up deadline. According to the exchange’s chairman of the board, Stephen Weeg, deferring to the federal government for technical infrastructure and data collection services will last for only one year.

“The earnest debate that characterized the Idaho Legislature’s March approval of legislation creating the Idaho Health Insurance Exchange has shifted to intense preparation for meeting a critical deadline in early October,” Otter, along with Weeg, announced in a joint statement Thursday from the governor’s office. “The Obama administration will impose a federal exchange in Idaho unless we have ours operating by October. Meeting the deadline will require us to move quickly and act creatively.”

Reports of Idaho turning to the federal government for help with its state-based exchange emerged Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal, which noted that the Idaho exchange will cede the enrollment and eligibility portions of its operations to federal control. According to the Journal, Idahoans will still be able to log on to an Idaho-specific website to shop for insurance plans, but behind the scenes federal computers will examine enrollment data and determine people’s eligibility for federal insurance subsidies.

“The plan is to temporarily use federal government services to get the exchange up and running,” Weeg told IdahoReporter.com. “I think all this flows through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but to be honest, I’m not an IT (information technology) guy, and I don’t know exactly where all the information goes. We had to do this to meet the Oct. 1 deadline of having the exchange operational, and so we can maintain primacy over our own state exchange. If we were to miss the deadline and default to a federal exchange, Idaho would lose control over its state-based exchange.”

The joint statement issued by Otter and Weeg does not make mention of HHS’s involvement in the state insurance exchange. It does note, however, that implementing the exchange “requires moving quickly (and) creatively” and states that “the Exchange Board’s fast-track mission has been to create an online health insurance marketplace designed, driven and controlled by Idahoans to help our fellow citizens research and obtain affordable coverage that’s right for them.”

Earlier this year, several of the state legislators who voted in favor of Otter’s insurance exchange plan argued that the creation of a state-based exchange would shield Idahoans from federal government involvement in their health care.

For example, Rep. Brandon Hixon, R-Caldwell, said on March 18 that Idaho needed the state-based exchange because, without it, the state would have a federal insurance exchange forced upon it, in which case Idahoans would “cede every bit of control that we have over to an insolvent government (the federal government) that I firmly believe does not have the best interests of Idaho citizens in mind.”

When IdahoReporter.com contacted Hixon Thursday, he responded that he was unaware of the federal involvement with the state-based exchange and declined to comment until he could learn more.

Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, told IdahoReporter.com that “I’d prefer that a state-based insurance exchange would be up and running by Oct. 1, and that the federal government’s involvement would not be necessary, but the timing of the issue has prevented that.”

Burgoyne added that “Idahoans want and expect a state-based exchange in the long run. If the federal government is seeking to take over, or if the exchange board has changed course, that will be unacceptable.”

Rep. Rick Youngblood, R-Nampa, told IdahoReporter.com that “I would be disappointed if we allowed the feds to come in and provide any management or assistance of our Idaho insurance exchange,” while Rep. Neil Anderson, R-Blackfoot, noted that “the purpose of a state-managed exchange is to allow Idaho to maintain maximum state control over the process. To the extent that this is lessened or temporarily deferred, I’d like to get more information. I do, however, have great confidence in Stephen Weeg.” Both Youngblood and Anderson voted in favor of the insurance exchange.

IdahoReporter.com asked several officials involved with the state-based insurance exchange if deferring to the federal government was legally acceptable within the parameters of the state insurance exchange law itself.
“It certainly should be,” Burgoyne, who is an attorney, said. “But that is a question that should be directed to the executive director of the exchange.”

Weeg, on the other hand, did not comment on the legality of these developments with the state-based insurance exchange, telling IdahoReporter.com that the exchange board has not asked the attorney general’s office for a formal legal opinion.

Rep. Luke Malek, R-Coeur d’Alene, also an attorney, said the federal involvement “isn’t ideal. But I remain grateful to HHS for providing this short-term solution to us. This will allow Idaho to remain in control of our own insurance choices.”

IdahoReporter.Com contacted the attorney general’s office to seek comment. “We do not discuss issues pertaining to the insurance exchange,” Kris Blivens Cloyd, spokesperson for the office noted. “I suggest you contact the governor about this.”

However, on May 21 Brian Kane, deputy attorney general, spoke at length with IdahoReporter.com on another matter pertaining to both the state insurance exchange law and the Idaho Constitution.

IdahoReporter.com also attempted to contact Michael Stoddard, an attorney with the Hawley Troxell law firm, serving as legal counsel to the insurance exchange, for clarification on the legality of federal involvement in the exchange. Calls to Stoddard’s office were not returned.

Idaho Senate Education Committee Chairman John Goedde discusses new national statistics on education funding, noting that highly performing teachers are worthy of pay increases, on The Austin Hill

Brian McGourty, newly elected Trustee of the troubled Nampa School District, discusses the pathway forward, and reforming the public education’s ’50′s styled business model” on The Austin Hill Show

A new report from the United States Census Bureau indicates that Idaho is ranked near the bottom among the states when it comes to spending on public education. Yet the same Census Bureau report and an education journal from Harvard University indicate that Idaho is among the top 20 states in the nation when it comes to academic achievement.

“Our rankings for reading and mathematics achievement are significant,” commented Melissa McGrath, spokesperson for the Idaho Department of Education. According to the Census Bureau report, Idaho is ranked No. 19 among the states for reading test scores and No. 16 among the states for mathematics test scores.

“That means that we are 19th and 16th among the states respectively, with students that are performing at or above grade level in those academic disciplines,” McGrath told IdahoReporter.com.

Conversely, the District of Columbia ranks No. 2 in the nation for public education spending (when ranked among the 50 states), yet comes in last with academic achievement.

The Census Bureau report also lists Idaho as being near the bottom—second only to the state of Utah—in per-pupil spending on a state-by-state basis. Yet in fiscal year 2013, nearly half— indeed a full 47 percent—of the Idaho government’s entire budget is devoted to public education. As a percentage of the overall state budget, Idaho’s spending is far higher than the national average.

“There is something missing in all these news reports, and I think it’s substantial,” Sen. John Goedde, R-Coeur d’Alene, told IdahoReporter.com. Goedde, chairman of the Idaho Senate Education Committee, said that “historically Idaho has allotted somewhere between 45 and 52 percent of our state budget for public education, yet some other states are as low as 30 percent. If you consider the percentage of our entire state budget and the academic achievement we’re producing, I think we are doing pretty well.”

Goedde’s assessment concurs with findings that were unveiled during the fall of 2012 in “Education Next,” an academic research journal on public education published by Harvard University. After a nearly two-decades long study (between 1990 and 2009) of academic achievement among the 50 states and several foreign countries, “Education Next” reported that Idaho has not only improved academic achievement significantly, but also uses tax dollars very wisely.

In a section of their report entitled “Money Is Not The Answer: spending more does not necessarily lift test scores,” researchers Eric A. Hanushek, Ludger Woessmann and Paul E. Peterson wrote that “some states received more educational bang for their additional expenditure buck than others. Michigan, Indiana, Idaho, North Carolina, Colorado and Florida made the most achievement gains for every incremental dollar spent over the past two decades.” The study was released in November of 2012.

But Marty has chosen to target me, just because I run the Idaho Freedom Foundation, an organization with a tremendous amount of reach and influence (and possibly because he knows I won’t take it personally, and I don’t).

Still, Marty doesn’t like that the Idaho Freedom Foundation educates lawmakers and the public about the power of free market solutions to improve the lives of Idahoans. He prefers Big Government, and the Idaho Freedom Foundation, therefore, is the greatest threat to Marty’s world view.

Marty is upset with me because I chose to contest a speeding ticket. My ticket said I was being charged with violating Idaho Code 49-654(2)(E). Being engaged in public policy each day as the Idaho Freedom Foundation is, I looked up Idaho Code 49-654(2)(E). Turns out, the statute doesn’t exist. The police made up the statute in order to accommodate the penalties for driving too fast that the state Supreme Court invented when the Legislature didn’t.

Marty, himself not a stranger to state statutes, wants me to shut up and pay the fine. I think that’s a very strange proposition. Here in America, lawmakers write laws, and courts adjudicate those laws. Here in America, when courts write laws, people should get upset. Here in America, when people get upset, they have the right to take their grievance to their legislators and to the court system, as I have.

The court has clearly overstepped its bounds. What if the court decided people should pay more for speeding in a truck, and less for speeding in a car? What if the court decided speeding was bad, but speeding with kids in your car is badder? Courts shouldn’t make law, and when it does someone should step in and demand corrective action. It so happens that today, I’m that somebody.

I still like Marty. It’s fun to trade barbs with him, and I value his friendship and his warped sense of reality. Occasionally, Marty and I agree, but when we don’t, it only further helps validate my thinking in the pursuit of economic freedom and justice.

Despite a provision in state law that requires it, the members of the board of directors who oversee Gov. Butch Otter’s health insurance exchange began their work more than a month ago without being confirmed by the Senate. As the board continues its work in establishing the operations of the insurance exchange, the issue of whether or not the Senate will actually take up the confirmation of board members remains uncertain.

“The appointing of the board members happened after the Legislature wrapped up this year,” Rep. Kelley Packer, R-McCammon, a member of the insurance exchange board told IdahoReporter.com. “The Senate simply hasn’t had the opportunity to vote on this matter this year because they haven’t met since the appointments.”

Packer added that the insurance exchange law only requires board members who are not also legislators to receive Senate confirmation.

Within the bill that the Legislature passed and the governor signed that created the insurance exchange, a stipulation reads that “the members appointed to the board by the governor shall be subject to confirmation by the Senate, provided that, upon appointment board members shall have full authority to exercise all the rights and duties, and participate in all decisions, required of the position.”

According to Brian Kane, deputy attorney general, Otter was able to navigate around the need for Senate confirmation of the board members because of how he timed their appointments.

“The insurance exchange bill was signed in to law by Gov. Otter on March 28,” Kane explained to IdahoReporter.com. “The Legislature adjourned on April 4 of this year, and then the governor appointed the board members on April 10. According to Article 4 Section VI of the Idaho State Constitution, the governor can fill vacancies on boards by himself when the Senate is not in session, so the governor’s appointments stand without Senate confirmation, and this was all done in accordance with the law and the constitution.”

During the last session of the Legislature, a central point of debate was whether or not the Idaho health insurance exchange would be overseen adequately by those in elective offices or merely by appointees of the governor.

For example, at a February meeting of the Senate Commerce and Human Resources Committee, Sen. Branden Durst, D-Boise, said that “legislators need to think very carefully whether or not we want to abdicate our authority to a governing board,” adding “why is it that the governor, the executive branch, seems to have final authority over this?” Durst was the only member of the committee to vote against the insurance exchange bill, and the only Democrat to vote against it in the full Senate.

Similarly, in March, House Majority Leader Mike Moyle, R-Star, debated against the insurance exchange bill, noting that the exchange would be a non-governmental entity “consisting of unelected folks who will tax us and make our decisions.” He asked his fellow House members, “Have you really read this bill? If you want a state exchange, then have the state involved in running it for cryin’ out loud.”

IdahoReporter.com asked Kane if the Senate would vote to confirm the governor’s board member appointees when it convenes next year. “I presume so, but I can’t comment on that with certainty,” he replied. “I am not expert in the intricacies of gubernatorial appointees so I suggest you ask the Senate and the governor’s legal counsel.”

Senate Pro Tem Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, told IdahoReporter.com that he will consult with the attorney general’s office before deciding the next steps. “I honestly haven’t thought that far ahead on the insurance exchange board,” he noted, “but I suspect we will probably need to hold a vote on this next year.”

Kane told IdahoReporter.com that if the Senate votes to not approve one or more of the governor’s board appointees, then that person(s) would likely be removed from the board. “A rejection of that sort actually happened earlier this year,” he said, in reference to the Senate rejecting Otter’s appointment of Joan Hurlock to the Idaho Fish and Game Commission back in February. “Presumably, it could happen again.”