Wyoming expects federal exchange after lawmakers halt group's work

2012-12-25T07:00:00Z 2013-09-24T19:26:05Z Wyoming expects federal exchange after lawmakers halt group's workBy JOSHUA WOLFSON Star-Tribune staff writer Casper Star-Tribune Online

Don’t let the feds run the show.

A Wyoming group spent more than a year studying options for a health insurance exchange. They weren’t certain how an exchange would work in a lightly populated state, or how much the operation might cost. But the Wyoming Health Benefits Exchange Steering Committee did agree on one thing: The state shouldn’t cede control to the federal government.

But nine months after the group last met, that’s exactly what’s happening. Along with 24 other states, Wyoming failed to submit a plan for an exchange by the Dec. 14 deadline. Now, the federal government is expected to operate a program on Wyoming’s behalf.

Exchanges, virtual marketplaces where consumers can shop for insurance, are a key part of the federal health reform law.

States are required to have one running by 2014. Federal officials promise to operate programs for states that fail to comply.

Some Wyoming leaders, including Gov. Matt Mead, say the state’s attempt to study an exchange was hampered by a lack of information from federal counterparts.

But even more critical was a bill passed by state’s own Legislature, which halted the exchange group’s work until after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Affordable Care Act. The bill also prohibits Wyoming leaders from committing to an exchange until next April.

“We played a lot of politics with the [Affordable Care Act],” said Anne Ladd, chief executive of the Wyoming Business Coalition on Health. “We tried to pretend it wasn’t the law of the land. We hoped it would get overturned. When it wasn’t overturned, we hoped we would get someone else in office.”

Before the 2012 legislation session, Wyoming appeared on track to meet the federal timeline for exchanges, said Sen. Bill Landen, a Casper Republican who served on the committee. The group recommended accepting federal grant money and conducting more study of exchange options.

Halted progress

After lawmakers enacted the prohibition, the committee met in March and essentially stood down, Landen said. Some lawmakers on the committee continued to gather information, but the prohibition limited their work.

“We kind of put the car in neutral, to be honest,” he said.

In June, the Supreme Court upheld most of the Affordable Care Act, including parts related to health exchanges. By September, lawmakers were publicly acknowledging that Wyoming wouldn’t meet the deadline, setting the stage for a federal exchange.

There’s no guarantee Wyoming would have avoided a federal takeover if the committee had been allowed to continue its work. But the state would have been farther along in the process, Landen said.

Still, he and other lawmakers aren’t ready to call the prohibition a mistake. Sen. Charles Scott, co-chairman of the Legislature’s health committee, said taking federal planning money would have committed the state to an exchange. The prohibition, he maintains, was a good idea.

Others aren’t so sure. Barb Rea of the pro-health-reform group Consumer Advocates: Project Healthcare noted the exchange group invested considerable time and effort to study the issue.

“To have the Legislature come in and say, ‘We don’t want to hear what you say anyway,’ it’s so defeating,” she said.

But allowing the federal government to take first crack at the exchange isn’t a bad thing, Rea continued. It gives the state time to decide which parts of the program it would like to control.

“As we gradually learn what the difficult jobs are, we can gradually take it over,” she said. “That seems, to me, to be not threatening, very logical and something that is going to pay off for Wyoming citizens.”

Some lawmakers want to create a new group that could help with that process. The group would be tasked with monitoring the federal exchange and recommending whether Wyoming should partner with the federal government, or run its own program.

A key legislative committee rejected legislation earlier this month that would have formed such a group. But Landen and other lawmakers plan to still sponsor the bill in next months’ general session.

Wyoming is not necessarily in a bad situation, given that it can opt back in down the road, Landen said.

“It is going to give us the time to observe and evaluate and still have a couple of years to decide if we want to do something differently,” he said.

Contact Joshua Wolfson at 307-266-0582 or at Visit to read his blog. Follow him on Twitter @joshwolfson.

Copyright 2015 Casper Star-Tribune Online. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(3) Comments

  1. highdesert
    Report Abuse
    highdesert - December 26, 2012 6:52 am
    The power of (neo-) Conservative thinking..........
  2. Don Wills
    Report Abuse
    Don Wills - December 25, 2012 11:57 am
    rgath is right. Those who believe that a state exchange established under ObamaCare wouldn't be controlled by the feds are ignorant of how federal money works. The feds give states money but always with lots of strings attached. Essentially states become vassals of the federal bureaucracy - the exact opposite of the intentions of the founders 225 years ago and of the desires of citizens of Wyoming today.

    What's also disingenuous of ObamaCare supporters is that they generally believe the federal government can do things better than states. So why do they want the states to do insurance exchanges? Could it be to offload costs while still maintaining control? That's my guess.
  3. rgath
    Report Abuse
    rgath - December 25, 2012 7:22 am
    wyoming made the correct decision:

    the feds wanted us to accept a pig in a poke. they don't even know what this is going to be- it's going to be made up as they go along. remember: "Forward".
    they wanted to set the hook. the bait was the prospect of the initial payment. then they would have us in the same position they have us regarding highway funds. they can hold them hostage to make us do anything they like.
    anybody remember the tenth amendment to the Constitution? anybody remember the Constitution at all?

    it's their mess. let them deal with it.
Untitled Document

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps...

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

  5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at, or call Editor Jason Adrians at 266-0545 or Content Director David Mayberry at 266-0633. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

  6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

  7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

  8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Featured Businesses

Latest Offers