Health First Indiana set to receive less funding as legislators debate its impact
The Lake County Health Department partnered with organizations to address chronic illnesses, disease prevention and gun safety. The Porter County Health Department partnered with organizations to address disease prevention, heart health and mental health for first responders.
As the state legislature discusses the future of Health First Indiana funding, Lake and Porter County health officials would like to see the state continue funding the program.
Health First Indiana was created by Senate Enrolled Act 4, which the legislature approved in 2023, to address public health in Indiana. The program establishes a public health infrastructure through a state and local partnership where each county, after choosing to opt in, can determine which health services to invest in based on community needs.
The state funded the program $75 million in fiscal year 2024 and $150 million in fiscal year 2025, said Sen. Ed Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso, who authored the bill to establish the Health First Indiana program.
In the upcoming two-year budget, the program has been slated to receive $100 million in fiscal year 2026 and $100 million in fiscal year 2027. But, as the budget has been discussed in committee, some legislators have voiced concern about continuing to fund the program.
While Health First Indiana has been successful, Charbonneau said its funding, like the funding for all programs, has been closely examined this budget session as the legislature grapples with a nearly $1 billion Medicaid shortfall.
'Not everyone is 100% convinced that it's working. A part of the issue, the problem, that we're dealing with is the fact that this isn't like an economic development project where you invest $100 million … and you have an almost immediate return on your investment. This is a long-term commitment, and it's not going to provide any measurable results for many years,' Charbonneau said.
In Lake and Porter counties, health officials said the program was created as former Gov. Eric Holcomb's administration realized how far behind Indiana lagged in public health measures nationwide. The money they have received, officials said, has gone toward improving public health, the effects of which won't be seen for a few more years.
'We strongly believe that good public health and good preventative care is going to be very good in terms of overall health of the county. That will reduce the number of people who need the emergency room, it will require less hospitalization,' said Lake County Health Officer Dr. Chandana Vavilala.
Lake County received approximately $190,500 in 2023, approximately $6 million in 2024 – of which approximately $1.2 million was split between the East Chicago and Gary health departments – and approximately $11.6 million in 2025 – of which approximately $2 million was split between the East Chicago and Gary health departments, said Lake County Health Department Administrator Sheila Paul.
The Lake County Health Department has spent its funds toward 20 partnerships, including the Indiana University School of Medicine with disease prevention education, the Purdue Extension to address chronic disease prevention, and the Food Bank of Northwest Indiana for medically tailored grocery supplies for at-risk pregnant women and those with anxiety and depression, Vavilala said.
Michelle Arnold, the Lake County Health First Indiana program director, said the Purdue Extension partnership focuses on chronic disease management, like diabetes, and its Be Heart Smart program, which focuses on food label education, nutrition and physical activity.
Through the Food Bank of Northwest Indiana partnership, the health department will receive a locker that has a refrigerated section to provide food and a separate section for hygiene products, diapers, coats and other items, Arnold said.
The Lake County Health Department has partnered with the St. John Fire Department to help people prevent falls and reduce emergency room visits, Vavilala said. The department also used the funds to purchase a mobile clinic to increase access to health services, she said.
Further, the department partnered with Methodist Hospital to support maternal and infant well-being, safe sleep and car seat education and breastfeeding instructions, Paul said.
The department has also partnered with Mental Health America for safe sleep education for at-risk parents and caregivers, and for gun safety education for families with young children, Paul said. It has also partnered with Sounds of Sarah to provide education and awareness on dangers of illicit drugs, addiction prevention and access to life-saving services, she said.
The Health First Indiana funds have helped the county increase access to preventative care and health screenings, strengthened community partnerships, expanded home visiting and case management services for vulnerable populations, among others, Paul said.
If the funding were reduced, Paul said, it would 'significantly limit our ability to provide and expand our services.' A potential reduction would result in the roll back of the mobile clinic to rural and underserved communities and home visiting programs would be scaled back, which would increase avoidable hospitalizations.
Reducing public health funding won't benefit the county or the state in the long run, Vavilala said. Funding public health improves people's lives, reduces hospitalizations and has economic impacts as businesses prefer to establish themselves in healthy communities, she said.
'If we don't spend enough on public health, or the preventative care, in the beginning, we will be paying a much higher price in the long run anyways. Spending the money towards the preventative health care is much better than spending the money on the negative effects that we can have in the long run by not investing adequately into public health,' Vavilala said.
Porter County received $135,768.41 in 2023, approximately $1.8 million in 2024 and approximately $3.4 million in 2025 in Health First Indiana funds, said Porter County Health Department Administrator Carrie Gschwind.
In Porter County, funds have gone toward a health fair, which allowed community health organizations to gather to offer free health screenings and services from vision to heart health and provide IHSA sports physicals, among other services, Gschwind said.
The Porter County Health Department partnered with the Portage YMCA, Purdue Extension and Powers Health to work toward chronic disease prevention, which included blood pressure and diabetes screenings, and connecting people with resources they may have needed, she said.
Further, Porter County also worked with food pantries to provide diapers and baby wipes to those who need them, Gschwind said. The department has also partnered with area school districts and Northwest Indiana No Child Hungry to address food insecurity in children, she said.
The funding also went toward reviewing trauma and fatalities, offering harm reduction kits – with items ranging from seasonal wound care to hygiene products – throughout the county, and working toward becoming a Heart Safe county, which includes CPR training, installing AEDs in county buildings and a certain number of Heart Safe community sites, Gschwind said.
The Porter County Health Department also hired a psychoanalyst to work with the Porter County Sheriff's Department to offer mental health support to county first responders, Gschwind said.
The 2024 funds went toward other programs as well, including a mobile health clinic, Gschwind said. In 2025, the funds will go toward the programs established in 2024 as well as addressing four areas of need for the county, she said.
For 2025, the Health First Indiana funds will go toward reducing adult obesity over the next 10 years, reducing emergency room visits for asthma attacks by 2027, reducing the suicide rate by 2027, and increasing the number of required immunizations in children by 2027, Gschwind said.
The Health First Indiana program has let county health officials work with community partners to identify the health needs within the community, Gschwind said. Losing funding, she said, would be 'devastating to the work' the department has begun.
'Without the funding, we wouldn't be able to offer these expanded services, this type of outreach. We wouldn't be able to further these programs that we've started to be able to see that needle move,' Gschwind said. 'This was an amazon state investment in public health. We just ask that we're able to continue and expand upon even more this great work.'
As the Senate Appropriations Committee holds hearings about the budget, the Health First Indiana funding has been placed under a microscope.
During a committee meeting earlier this month, Committee Chair Sen. Ryan Mishler, R-Mishawaka, said he and other legislators received pressure from constituents to cut or eliminate the program because they question how the money has been spent.
In the same meeting, Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, questioned allocating more funds to the program because the state hasn't seen 'significant results' in the last two years.
Charbonneau, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in an interview with the Post-Tribune that he's concerned about funding the program amid the Medicaid shortfall. But Charbonneau pointed to the irony of facing a Medicaid shortfall and its rising costs while discussing funding for preventative care.
'The problem is going to continue to grow unless we stop the front end, unless we stop people from getting sick,' Charbonneau said. 'What this is doing is focusing on the front end and addressing issues before they become serious problems.'
Charbonneau said he's hopeful that the program will retain its allocation of $200 million over the next two years.
'We may, at a minimum, put some guardrails on it as to how the money can be spent. I can live with some guardrails, as long as they are reasonable, if that's what it takes to continue the funding,' Charbonneau said.
Specific guardrails haven't been discussed, Charbonneau said. The Health First Indiana program is a paradigm shift for the state, he said, and should receive funding.
'The return on investment will be incredible, but it's going to take time,' Charbonneau said.
Vavilala agreed, saying the program will have lasting benefits into the future.
'We are investing not just for now,' Vavilala said. 'We are investing this money for generations to come.'
akukulka@post-trib.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues Utah Attorney General over discount medication law
SALT LAKE CITY () — The pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca has filed a federal lawsuit against Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike over a recent law that is intended to allow more pharmacies to have access to drug discount programs. In a lawsuit filed May 23, AstraZeneca alleges that Utah SB 69 is unconstitutional. The law was introduced and passed in the 2025 General Assembly, and it went into effect on May 7. The law prohibits drug manufacturers from restricting pharmacies from working with 340B entities, which help pharmacies and patients access medications at a discounted price. Senator Lee responds to the Trump-Musk feud The 340B Drug Pricing Program is a that 'enables covered entities to stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services,' according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) website. It means that drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid agree to provide 'outpatient drugs to covered entities at significantly reduced prices.' All organizations need to be registered and enrolled in the 340B program in order to purchase discounted medications. The law that established the 340B Program, Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, specified certain types of for the program, such as medical centers that serve rural and other underserved communities and clinics that specialize in particular diseases like HIV/AIDS. SB 69 expands the scope, requiring drug manufacturers to provide the discounts to third-party pharmacies that are contracting with 340B entities, and this is what AstraZeneca is claiming is unconstitutional in its lawsuit. Utah House Republicans elect new leadership members The lawsuit states that because price controls 'disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets,' Congress chose to specifically limit the types of organizations that are eligible in Section 340B. The suit notes that for-profit pharmacies like Walgreens or CVS were not included as eligible, and there have already been several federal court cases ruling that block efforts to require drug manufacturers to provide discounts to contracted pharmacies. AstraZeneca claims in its suit that SB 69 'requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies,' expanding 340B discounts to 'an entirely new category of transactions not covered by Section 340B itself.' The suit alleges that SB 69 directly conflicts with federal law requirements, and therefore, it cannot be enforced against Astrazeneca or other drug manufacturers. AstraZeneca is asking the court to declare SB 69 unconstitutional and to order that Utah AG Derek Brown and Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike not enforce the law against AstraZeneca. Musk floats 'The American Party' after Trump tiff Myths VS Facts: What health officials want you to know about the MMR vaccine Good4Utah Road Tour: Willard Bay State Park Lori Vallow Daybell back in court, charged with conspiracy to murder ex nephew-in-law Man charged with assault for allegedly attacking and strangling neighbor Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Activists protest possible Medicaid cuts outside KS Rep. Derek Schmidt's Topeka office
TOPEKA (KSNT) — Kansans are speaking out against lawmakers who are voting to cut Medicaid. The GOP-led One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed the US House by a razor thin margin. 215 House members voted to pass it, while 214 voted against it. Local Kansas activists are calling out Rep. Derek Schmidt, a Republican who voted to pass the bill. A group of protesters gathered outside of Schmidt's office in Topeka Thursday afternoon and expressed concerns about cuts to Medicaid. 'Today is life or death,' protester Dillon Warren said. 'We voted someone in there that we shouldn't have. He doesn't support us.' The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the bill passes, at least 7 million people will lose Medicaid coverage. For that reason, many Kansas voters are making their voices heard. Chiefs and Royals stadium bill deadline approaching as Kansas and Missouri fight for the teams 'We need Medicaid for medical equipment,' protester Rick Macias said. 'These chairs are $200,000 if not more. So, it's very important that Medicaid sticks around.' 27 News reached out to Schmidt, who was unavailable for comment. A spokesperson for the congressman provided 27 News with a written statement. 'Congressman Schmidt is a strong supporter of Medicaid for people the program is designed to help: those who are disabled, in nursing homes, pregnant, raising small children, or otherwise in need. Unfortunately, some states have abused the program by providing benefits to illegal aliens, millions of healthy young adults who choose not to work, or people who are not eligible to receive taxpayer-funded benefits from the program. That is the main reason why Medicaid spending has exploded by more than 50 percent since just 2019: an unsustainable rate of growth that puts benefits for Americans who need them most at risk. By addressing this abuse of the program, Congressman Schmidt is protecting both the traditional Medicaid recipients who rely on benefits and the taxpayers who pay the bills.' Spokesman for Rep. Derek Schmidt For more Capitol Bureau news, click here. Keep up with the latest breaking news in northeast Kansas by downloading our mobile app and by signing up for our news email alerts. Sign up for our Storm Track Weather app by clicking here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
46 State Medical Associations Urge Senate to Reject Medicaid Cuts in H.R. 1
The House Budget Reconciliation bill will cause at least 7.8 million Medicaid enrollees to lose their health care coverage. SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Just days ahead of an expected Senate vote on H.R. 1, 46 state medical associations, as part of Physicians for Medicaid have sent a letter to the United States Senate urging them to reject the dangerous cuts to Medicaid proposed in H.R. 1 that will cause millions of patients to lose coverage and even more to lose access to care - children, pregnant women, seniors, veterans, the disabled and working families. Statewide hospital associations have also weighed in, as proposed cuts impact all providers, including physicians and hospitals. The bill, which includes $200 billion in cuts to the existing and longstanding provider taxes, would have a catastrophic effect on state budgets and the country's entire health care delivery system and would impact 49 state Medicaid programs. Provider taxes have been authorized under federal law, approved by both Republican and Democratic administrations, and affirmed by state legislatures in 49 states for decades. They are a legitimate financing mechanism used by states in partnership with the federal government to fund essential health services and have kept rural hospitals, maternity wards, nursing homes, and physician practices open. The bill also imposes damaging changes to federal student loan programs making it harder for students to pursue medical careers at a time of critical physician shortages. We urge the Senate to pursue more balanced solutions that expand the physician workforce and preserve Medicaid for our patients. "If these provider tax cuts are enacted, it will create significant gaps in State budgets, forcing states to raise taxes, or reduce benefits, coverage, and provider payments. These reductions will lead to even more crowding of emergency departments and as the uncompensated care burdens grow from patients losing coverage, many rural hospitals, nursing homes, and community physician practices will be forced to close to all patients," the letter says. There are three main provisions in H.R. 1 (as passed by the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025) that will drastically limit or eliminate existing provider taxes nationwide. These provisions below apply to all provider taxes, including hospitals, nursing homes, managed care organizations, and other provider categories. Moratorium on New or Increased Provider Taxes (SEC. 44132) – Under the provisions of H.R. 1, none of these taxes could be increased after the passage and enactment of the law nor can any new taxes be adopted by the state Legislatures (there are 19 categories of provider taxes). This provision would freeze taxes and not keep pace with increasing health care costs over time. It is also not equitable between states. Revising Payments for Certain State Directed Payments (SEC. 44133) – Once a provider tax is established, state Medicaid programs can fund supplemental or enhanced payments to providers using a variety of rate methodologies. Under H.R. 1, any future directed payments would be limited to the Medicare payment rate. Medicare physician payment rates are already 33% behind the costs to provide health care. These rates will not keep pace for public hospitals and physician specialists that care for the sickest patients nationwide. Requirements Regarding Waiver of Uniform Tax Requirement for Medicaid Provider Tax (SEC. 44134) – The language in H.R. 1 requires provider taxes in multiple states to uniformly tax hospitals, nursing homes, and managed care organizations within each category of provider tax. The uniformity requirement will be extremely difficult for most states to meet and therefore, it eliminates multiple provider taxes in many states. The HHS Secretary has discretion to allow for a transition period, which is not something upon which states can rely. "These provisions will destabilize state health systems, reduce access to care, and worsen physician shortages. Instead, we encourage you to protect Medicaid – a proven, cost-effective safety net that serves 80 million vulnerable Americans," the letter concluded. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE California Medical Association; Physicians for Medicaid Sign in to access your portfolio