Think the feds threw cold water on the Otter administration’s plans to offer non-ACA compliant insurance plans?
The Idaho Department of Insurance disagrees.
Idaho officials are pushing back against interpretations of a letter questioning Idaho’s insurance plans, according to a joint statement released by Department of Insurance Director Dean Cameron, Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter and Lt. Gov. Brad Little.
“Contrary to news media interpretations, the letter from CMS Administrator Verma was not a rejection of our approach to providing more affordable health insurance options for the people of Idaho. Her letter made it clear that Idaho’s efforts to pursue innovative alternatives hold great promise, and we believe that Idaho’s plan aligns with the State’s responsibility for ‘substantially enforcing’ Obamacare,” the statement said.
“We were anticipating a letter saying essentially what it says,” Cameron told Idaho Reports. “…All along, we said we’re pushing the boundary lines a little bit, and it’s appropriate for them to say ‘Your toes are across the line here.'”
The language Verma uses — “we have reason to believe that Idaho may not be substantially enforcing provisions of the PP ACA” — isn’t definitive, either, Cameron said.
Verma’s use of the phrase “substantially” meeting ACA requirements is also open to interpretation, he added, pointing to Idaho’s 260 insurance plans that fully meet ACA standards. Even the five plans that Blue Cross of Idaho introduced under the scheme are mostly compliant, he argued. (Those plans haven’t yet been approved by the Department of Insurance.)
Requests for comment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services weren’t immediately returned.
Regardless of whether Otter and Cameron’s interpretation is right, they’re not going to end the conversation here. We’ll have more on this on Friday’s Idaho Reports.
Read full joint statement below.
“Contrary to news media interpretations, the letter from CMS Administrator Verma was not a rejection of our approach to providing more affordable health insurance options for the people of Idaho. Her letter made it clear that Idaho’s efforts to pursue innovative alternatives hold great promise, and we believe that Idaho’s plan aligns with the State’s responsibility for “substantially enforcing” Obamacare. In fact, we consider the letter an invitation from CMS to continue discussing the specifics of what can and cannot be included in state-based plans. We will consider all possible options and then continue discussions with CMS and HHS on how best to achieve our shared goals of reducing the costs of coverage and stabilizing our health insurance market.”
Sen. Dan Foreman, R-Moscow, is usually a reserved man. He speaks calmly and emphatically, even about issues over which he feels strongly, like abortion. But he’s known for his outbursts.
A screen grab of the now-deleted @SenDantheMan Twitter profile.
The same could be said for @SenDantheMan, a Twitter account with the District 5 lawmaker’s name, photo and a link to his campaign site. Most of the tweets were mundane, the sort you’d expect to see from a Republican politician in his 60s: A comment about how there will be a way forward for health care post-Obamacare, a retweet of Idaho State Police congratulating an Eagle Scout, support for the Second Amendment. Like many Idaho lawmakers’ Twitter accounts, @SenDantheMan went mostly silent after the 2017 legislative session.
Scheffelmaier had been among the UI students who had traveled from Moscow to Boise for Planned Parenthood’s lobby day, and wrote on her account that she and other students had planned on a 9 am appointment with Foreman to discuss birth control and sex education.
Foreman later said the account wasn’t affiliated with him, and on Monday night, tweets from the account itself claimed it had been a parody the whole time.
If the world of social media weren’t confusing enough, that series of tweets from the now-defunct Twitter account prompted an ethics complaint from Sen. Maryanne Jordan, as well as a discussion about civility, truth, and what you should and shouldn’t believe online.
On Tuesday, Foreman told Idaho Reports that he’s never had a Twitter account, despite mentioning Twitter use in a past interview.
“When I was bringing my anti-abortion legislation to the forefront down in Boise, there was a grand total of zero churches that stood up,” Foreman said in the interview. “I didn’t get a single phone call, a text, a tweet, an e-mail, a letter, nothing.” That was the only reference to Twitter in the hour-long episode, though two of the hosts later tagged the @SenDantheMan account while promoting the show or engaging with him and other former guests.
When asked about that interview, Foreman said he didn’t remember that part of the discussion.
“If I said Twitter, I misspoke because I wouldn’t even know how to get on Twitter,” Foreman told Idaho Reports on Tuesday. Foreman does have both personal and campaign Facebook pages, though he updates those rarely.
“When it comes to social media, you’re looking at a Neanderthal. I don’t do that stuff,” he said.
Foreman declined to say whether he’d yet spoken to Jordan to clear the air.
There’s no question that Foreman yelled at the University of Idaho students on Monday — that interaction was caught on at least two cell phone cameras. Attacking a fellow senator, however, would add another level of gravity to Foreman’s actions.
Beyond the questions of civility, the @SenDantheMan dust-up raises broader questions of accountability for online communications. If the account’s claim is true — that @SenDantheMan was fake the whole time — then it’s yet another example of untrustworthy social media accounts claiming to be one thing and perpetuating lies. It also caused a significant amount of grief for both Foreman and Jordan, as well as members of Senate leadership tasked with investigating the claim.
And whether or not the account was Foreman’s, @SenDantheMan lays out a roadmap for public officials with unverified accounts to make bombastic statements, then claim the account wasn’t theirs. Regret what you’ve written? Just delete it and say you had no connection to it.
There’s no proof one way or another, but everything posted on the account through Monday indicated it was connected with Foreman.
Before the account was deleted, posts dating back to Feb. 2017 line up with Foreman’s political ideology, and include language that’s identical or nearly identical to what Foreman has said in interviews and in writing, such as “Murder is murder” and “abortion kills a precious living being.”
Some phrases were verbatim from Foreman’s website.
In another post, the account interacts with Twitter user @iamaroadtrip, defending Foreman’s anti-abortion legislation.
Sen. Maryanne Jordan and Sen. Dan Foreman at the Feb. 20 Senate Health and Welfare meeting. Melissa Davlin/Idaho Reports.
The dig at Maryanne Jordan was also specific. Both Jordan and Foreman serve on the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, and sit right next to each other. Whoever wrote that either had an intimate knowledge of the Idaho Legislature, or got lucky and picked a random Senate Democrat who happens to be on a committee with Foreman.
There were no tweets that indicated it was a parody — no over-the-top ideological statements, no poking fun at Foreman or anyone else, and nothing taking advantage of other times Foreman has been in the news for controversial actions, such as yelling at a constituent at the Latah County Fair in 2017.
Backing away from controversy on social media isn’t uncommon for politicians. Most use some variation of the excuses “I was hacked” or “A staffer made that post.” In some cases, the politician was telling the truth. (Looking at you, “Me likey Broke Girls.”) In other cases, they weren’t.
And parody accounts aren’t rare, even in the relatively tiny #idpol and #idleg Twitterverse. But all of those known parodies are over-the-top and meant to make fun of their targets, affectionately or otherwise. Parodies, by their very nature, lampoon the subjects to make a political point. Along the same lines, they’re not meant to make audiences believe they’re actually real.
Dr. Jaclyn Kettler, associate professor with the School of Public Service at Boise State University, told Idaho Reports she had never seen a parody account that didn’t act like a parody, and one that shriveled and disappeared right at the time it was getting the most attention. Imagine spending twelve months working on a painting, then ripping it up as soon as someone looked at it.
“You’d kind of imagine this would be the best time for attention,” Kettler said.
Regardless of who is behind @SenDantheMan, the incident doesn’t bode well for Idaho’s already fraught political discourse. At least when someone is yelling at you in the halls of the statehouse, you know who is doing it.
Atheists in Idaho law enforcement are forced to lie.
They are forced to lie before they even start their job, and they must do so while signing a code of ethics.
Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Division Administrator Victor McCraw would like to change that.
All POST officers must abide by and sign the ethics code, which states “I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession – law enforcement.” The phrase “before God” drew the objections of an applicant, who argued that it was ironic that they would have to lie while signing an ethics form.
McCraw consulted with a Deputy Attorney General and the POST Council about potential changes to the code of ethics that removed the religious language.
An unnamed Deputy Attorney General told McCraw that the language would be a constitutional issue. If challenged in a lawsuit, McCraw recounted, POST would lose. When reached for comment, the Attorney General’s office said they had no formal position on this issue.
The POST Council requested McCraw change the language. McCraw recommended “before God” be replaced by “with sincere and unfaltering commitment.” A divided POST Council agreed.
On January 15th, McCraw presented the rule change came to the House Judiciary and Rules committee.
Representative Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, objected to the change, criticizing the removal of references to God and questioned whether other sections of the code could be removed based on objections.
Rep. Ron Nate, R-Rexburg, asked why objectors couldn’t use a different code. McCraw stated that it was something that the council considered, but that they wanted a universal code for all officers.
Rep. Christy Zito, R-Hammett, attempted to stop the rule change. “The founding documents of our country and state are based on the belief of a supreme being,” Zito told Idaho Reports.
“Removing God because of fear of litigation is not a sound reason,” said Zito. “I support providing an optional oath for those who do not believe in God. I also believe it is important to protect the strong belief in God of those in my district and our state.”
The committee did not accept the changes that removed “before God.” They allowed all other changes to pass. Rep. Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, was the only one to disagree.
The “basis of the constitution is the separation of church and state. Government can’t impose who to pledge to,” said Wintrow. “It’s unconstitutional. [That’s] not me [saying that], it’s the AG saying it. God’s most important gift is choice.”
“It’s unconstitutional. [The pledge] is a religious test to gain employment”, explained Kathy Griesmyer, Policy Director of the ACLU of Idaho. Griesmyer cited Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) where the Supreme Court said, “[w]e repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’”
Since the House did not approve the changes, the code of ethics still includes the “before God” pledge. McCraw noted that POST would be unable to make any changes until the end of the legislative session. When the session ends, they will temporarily change the pledge to add “or with sincere and unfaltering commitment”. Then the POST committee will have to decide what changes to present to the legislature in 2019.
The ACLU, POST, and at least one person in the attorney general’s office believe the current POST rules are unconstitutional. Now, it’s up to the 2019 Legislature to decide what happens next.
Two health care plans — one an executive order on health insurance, and one a legislative proposal on Medicaid waivers — are touted as Idaho solutions to rising health care costs.
But sometimes, even state solutions need permission from the federal government. Right now, there’s no guarantee that permission will come.
In a Thursday interview with Idaho Reports, Idaho Department of Insurance Director Dean Cameron said both the executive order and the dual waiver proposal would need sign-off from the feds. When asked if he was confident that blessing would come, Cameron answered “We’ll see, won’t we?”
The executive order directs Cameron to create guidelines for insurance plans to be sold in Idaho that wouldn’t necessarily meet the mandates outlined in the Affordable Care Act. That wouldn’t need permission from the feds so much as the federal government’s inaction — in other words, declining to come after Idaho for non-compliant plans.
“We believe that when the president and Congress… repealed the individual mandate, that meant consumers didn’t have to buy ACA compliant plans,” Cameron said. “That means they can buy something else.”
But that belief hasn’t yet been tested, Cameron said.
The federal government has a few chances to comment on Idaho’s plans: When Idaho issues its guidelines, and when insurance companies create insurance plans to fit those guidelines. Right now, Cameron is working on putting together guidelines for insurance providers on what must be covered.
Jon Hanian, spokesman for Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter, pointed to President Donald Trump’s inclination toward deregulation as a sign of hope for the Idaho efforts.
“We have been and continue to be in constant contact with federal officials on this issue. They’re asking questions and we’re answering.”
“As of right now, they’re taking a wait-and-see approach,” Hanian said.
Another proposal, more uncertainty
The dual waiver proposal also needs sign-off — and unlike the executive order, it requires the federal government to take action.
Here’s how it works: One waiver would allow individuals with incomes under 100 percent of the federal poverty line to receive cost-share reductions and tax credits meant for buying insurance on the private market. The other waiver allows Idahoans with “medically complex diagnoses” — essentially, long-term conditions that are expensive to treat — to move to Medicaid.
The federal government hasn’t OKed the first part of the proposal regarding the tax credits. Without that first waiver, the second part of the proposal doesn’t work.
Lt. Gov. Brad Little, who also signed the executive order, emphasized the difference between the insurance executive order and the Medicaid dual waiver legislative proposal.
“Of course, (the feds) are in the same place,” Little said. “Everyone was expecting a repeal and replace, and all we’ve done is kind of banged up the Affordable Care Act.”
Cameron and Hanian said despite the uncertainty on both proposals, the Department of Insurance is in constant contact with DC.
“We’re… trying to walk a fine line between what would be acceptable and what would be unacceptable to the federal government,” Cameron said.
“We’re in touch with them every step of the way so that it doesn’t run into any problems and it would avoid any potential” issues, Hanian said.
The Jan. 19th episode of Idaho Reports also featured Rep. Fred Wood, chairman of the House Health and Welfare committee, and Sen. Maryanne Jordan, member of the Senate Health and Welfare committee, discussing the merits of the proposals.
You’d think we’d be able to fit three segments into an hour-long show, but this week, the conversations were too interesting to cut short. Both of our panel discussions — one on sexual harassment and respectful workplace policies, and one on the two Idaho health care proposals — went longer than we’d anticipated, and both were too interesting to put on the shelf.
So if our weekly show wasn’t enough, here are the full interviews.
Updated 3:35 pm, Jan. 18, with information on Hamilton’s resignation.
By Seth Ogilvie, Idaho Reports
The data director for the Idaho Democratic Party resigned Thursday after being charged with domestic battery.
Tom Hamilton, former political director for the party, was arrested and charged with domestic battery on Jan. 7th. He currently has a no contact order placed on him.
Earlier in the week, Idaho Reports had asked the Idaho Democratic Party whether Hamilton was still employed after the party learned about the charges.
“Right when we found out, we placed him on administrative leave,” Shelby Scott, communications director for the Idaho Democratic Party, said Tuesday. “The alleged incident happened outside of work hours and did not involve any members of the IDP organization.”
Scott added Hamilton was still being paid, but had been locked out of his work accounts.
On Tuesday, Scott and Idaho Democratic Party Chairman Bert Marley declined to comment on whether Hamilton would continue to be employed by the party.
“As of right now he has been placed on administrative leave, and I believe that the chairman will come to a decision,” Scott said Tuesday. “We take all of these allegations seriously, and we want to make sure people know we are taking this seriously. Any sort of incidents like this or any sort of arrest, we need to take a look at what’s going on there, and this is obviously no different.”
Ultimately, Hamilton resigned, and Marley accepted his resignation, Scott said Thursday.
The Idaho Democratic Party has previously criticized Republicans for supporting candidates with a history of domestic violence. In 2014, then-Idaho Democratic Party communications director Dean Ferguson attacked Republican support for Rep. Greg Chaney after Chaney’s past domestic battery charges came to light.
“The Idaho Democratic Party says Idaho families and Idaho children ‘deserve your support,’” Ferguson wrote. “Gov. Otter owes Idaho to explain why he endorses a candidate with Greg Chaney’s recent criminal history. Gov. Otter needs to tell Idaho families why he wants Chaney to vote on laws that affect the safety of Idaho families and Idaho children.”
Hamilton didn’t return messages for comment.
According to court documents, Hamilton posted a $500 bond two days later, on Jan. 9th. He has a pretrial hearing scheduled for Feb. 26th.
Here on Idaho Reports, we’d already been planning multiple stories and discussions this season related to mental health, crisis centers, and suicide in our state. And of course, there’s a grim cross-over between childhood sexual abuse, depression, and suicide. Survivors of childhood sexual abuse are two to four times more likely to attempt suicide.
The terrible circumstances surrounding Hixon’s death shouldn’t make us shy away from these conversations. So we’re going to have them. And it might be awkward at times, but it’s important. On this week’s Idaho Reports, following Gov. Otter’s recommendation of opening three additional crisis centers across the state, we’re focusing on suicide prevention.
This isn’t just because of Brandon Hixon, but because of the thousands of Idahoans who are touched by the tragedy of suicide every year.
If you or anyone you know is in emotional crisis, you can contact the Idaho Suicide Helpline at 208-398-4357, or visit their website.