“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system, that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”
The state of Alabama continues to deny its citizens access to expanded Medicaid. One of the arguments made by Alabama state Senator Tripp Pittman, a harsh critic of government in general and Medicaid in particular, is that the states are not given enough flexibility. He blamed the poor for the “excessive” cost of care, in fact, and suggested that if more control were given to the state the undeserving could be weeded out. Then, as one does with weeds, left in a pile on the side of the road to wilt I suppose.
An inside look of how the state of Alabama would REALLY handle this serious responsibility can be seen in the trial of our Speaker of the House, going on now. For those who don’t watch Rachel Maddow or read the New York Times, the state has its Governor under grand jury investigation and its Supreme Court Chief Justice under judicial review. These, however, are not the worst. Mike Hubbard, the Speaker, has been under indictment for 23 felony counts involving violations of the ethics laws he authored. It has taken two years for this to come to trial. In the interim he has been reelected to his seat and reelected as Speaker by his “peers.” Several of his peers have already pled guilty and are scheduled to testify. Others will likely plead the fifth.
It is an interesting set of charges. He is charged with taking money as a lobbyist (unregistered) from a gas company and then passing laws to push business in their direction. He is also charged with using his position as head of the Republican party to push business towards his formerly failing company. These are all your typical corrupt politician charges and his defense is one of confusion about the illegality of the actions (“I don’t know what he was talking about,” says defense attorney Baxley, it’s all “mumbo jumbo and gobbledygook.”) combined with the good-old-boy defense (“What he didn’t show was the parts of the ethics law that offers exceptions for friendships in business dealings,” Baxley said). Makes for fun theater.
The most serious charges and the ones that likely have gotten the feds interested are the ones regarding Medicaid. As a program that costs the state under a billion dollars and brings six billion dollars into the state, a bunch of money is available for folks to use for “bidness.” Speaker Hubbard, as documented in the New Republic, saw a huge opportunity. As the revenue stream for the general fund (which funds Medicaid) is diminishing and folks like Senator Pittman have no compunction to raise taxes, controlling medication costs seemed to be the natural course of action. Speaker Hubbard called a meeting and:
So three legislators, two lobbyists, and a handful of staff privately decided, after the briefest of deliberations, to enact a policy that would give a $20 million monopoly over the state’s Medicaid drug business to a corporation that had no experience running such a program, a move that would impact the lives of the 600,000 poorest and least powerful people in Alabama—children, senior citizens, people with disabilities.
Afterwards the group discovered to their surprise that one of the Speaker’s clients was involved in this Medicaid medication management scheme and would have benefited significantly.
The former chief of staff also urged Hubbard not to vote on the budget bill because it “looked bad,” but Hubbard said it would send up “too many red flags.” The language was later stripped in committee.
His current defense? “No harm, no foul” and/or “we stuck it to them city slickers.”
So in this one laboratory of democracy, even with significant federal oversight, Medicaid money seeps out around the edges to enrich a small number of folks. Imagine what’ll happen when the oversight is less. My prediction: It’ll be HUGE for some people, very few of those being the poor and the sick.