Phil Bryant's Position Is Getting Lonelier

In a radio interview yesterday morning, Governor Phil Bryant said that his fellow 29 Republican governors are standing strong in their efforts to fight Obamacare. A problem with Bryant's argument is that it is not true.

In recent months, Republican governors across the country have worked to offer health insurance options for thousands of working Americans. Most recently, Republican governors in Pennsylvania and Tennessee (who also have Republican-led legislatures) are laying the groundwork to broaden their states' Medicaid eligibility. Even Florida's Republican governor unsuccessfully tried to expand Medicaid in his state.

This now means that Republican governors in Arizona, Iowa, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have agreed to provide additional health care options for their states. Republican governors in Indiana, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming are still ironing out the specifics on their own version of expansion.

The well-known Republican governor of New Jersey was quoted as saying “We expanded Medicaid, because we believe that folks are better off going to see physicians and having care than going to emergency rooms all the time." And this guy may want to run as a Republican for President of the United States?!

Phil Bryant can beat his chest and talk a big game on talk radio, but at the end of the day, his misguided position is still bad policy with life-threatening consequences. This is the Republican Party he's fighting for.

If you didn't believe me before about the failure to expand Medicaid, maybe you will now

Southwest Regional Medical Center in McComb let five of its doctors go this past week.  In an AP interview, its CEO, Norman Price, said what I've been saying all along:

"The Affordable Care Act will force the acute care delivery system to evolve to accommodate a new reimbursement reality. As a result of the Affordable Care Act, the non-expansion of Medicaid will have the effect of over-running the emergency departments with non-paying patients. The inevitable cuts and changes will not be popular nor easy to accomplish. However, all will be necessary in order to move this medical center forward into the new Affordable Care Act world." (Emphasis added.)

And remember those DSH payments I've mentioned before (here, here, here, here, here, here and here)?

"We know we're going to be cut $8 million by the federal government, and we also know we're going to be cut 2% by Medicaid. That's going to equate to about $8.5 million to $9 million," Price said. 

The $8 million refers to the amount of money the hospital receives per year for taking on a disproportionate share of patients who are on Medicare or Medicaid.

DSH stands for "disproportionate share hospital".  The DSH program was established to give financial help to hospitals that provide care for an inordinate number of indigent patients.  As you can imagine, Mississippi hospitals are pretty dependent upon payments from the DSH program.  Under the Affordable Care Act, which is the law of the land regardless of how you feel about it, DSH payments are being severely restricted.  Why? Because patients that were causing hospitals to get DSH payments in the past were supposed to be covered by Medicaid expansion.  A Medicaid expansion, mind you, funded almost entirely by the federal government, not the state.

So as our Governor and his cohorts in the Legislature keep whistlin' Dixie, our health care system is burning to the ground.  

Special to Cottonmouth: Faith and the Role of Government

In recent public statements, both Gov. Phil Bryant and Speaker of the House Philip Gunn have raised the issue of religion and how it affects their work in the public offices they hold.  Gov. Bryant told a group of school kids that Christianity “shapes his world view.” He went on to say that his Christian faith leads him to oppose abortion and support the display of nativity scenes on government property.  He has also opposed any and all efforts to create health care exchanges and has opposed Medicaid health insurance expansion.

Speaker Gunn said he opposes expansion of Medicaid health insurance coverage for the poor because, he argues, that his reading of the Bible indicates that “It is not the government’s job to take care of its citizens” and that “people should not look to the government for their provision, their dependence or their joy.”

I read these opinions and thought how different they are from how Christianity and the Bible inform my own world view. For the religious community, caring for the poor and the sick is a timeless obligation. And while clearly the church and the non-profit community have a role to play in fulfilling that obligation, I believe that the government, as a human institution created under the authority of God, also has a role to play. When we consider the expansion of Medicaid in Mississippi, for example, we are looking at an opportunity to fulfill Christ’s declaration that “these signs shall follow them that believe . . . they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Mark, 16:17-18)  Certainly we cannot be like Jesus “healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people,” (Mathew, 4:23), but we can facilitate healing by offering health care to the hundreds of thousands of poor Mississippians who are currently uninsured through the expansion of the Medicaid program and a state-based health insurance exchange.

If, in fact, the government has no role to play in caring for its citizens, we would not sanction federal aid for hurricane victims. The federally subsidized flood insurance program would be totally privatized.  We would abandon the federal school lunch program. There would be no need for the Mississippi departments of health or mental health. We would shut down Meals on Wheels and the federal unemployment insurance program. Medicare and Medicaid would be eliminated. All federal assistance for the creation of small businesses would be repealed. Obviously the people of this state and this country, through their elected representatives, have decided that these government programs serve important social welfare needs.

Certainly the Speaker and the Governor should look to their faith to help guide the important decisions they make. However, neither they nor any other humans are infallible. There are many people of great faith who believe that Christ clearly calls on us to serve people in need, and this government “of the people, by the people, for the people” gives us one more way to do so.

For many Christians, caring for the poor, the sick the needy is a duty that comes from God. For that reason, God’s people should not stand aside when we have the opportunity to extend health insurance to thousands of low-income working Mississippians through the Medicaid program and a state-based health insurance exchange.

Cecil Brown
Mississippi House of Representatives
Jackson, MS
601-362-8383

Update: Uninsured driving costs at Hancock hospital

Last month, we reported on the financials woes at the Hancock Medical Center. Yesterday, they announced a new partnership with Oschner Health System based in Louisiana.

The new partnership will help Hancock Medical Center address the $11 million in uncompensated care that has caused major financial issues. And how will Oschner help with this? Primary care and assisting in Medicaid enrollment for eligible patients.

Of course, Medicaid expansion in Mississippi would assist with allowing people to have more access to primary care and compensate hospitals for services provided. As the the tea-party legislature beat the anti-expansion drum during the budget hearings this week, you have to wonder how many more stories of hospital financial ruin (such as the one posted yesterday) will occur before they'll get on board.

Hattiesburg Hospital Takes Financial Hit; Others Likely

It has been argued for months that without Mississippi expanding access to Medicaid services, some hospitals across the state would continue bleeding red ink. We noted a case in Hancock County last month, and now we're reading that the Forrest Health System, based in Hattiesburg, is feeling the financial pinch of having more patients to treat without the financial resources to do so.

Forrest Health is expecting a $2.5 million loss in its FY 2014 budget. Those aren't numbers to take lightly. They are already losing nearly $4 million in support payments made by the federal government to treat low-income persons. The Chief Financial Officer of the Forrest General Hospital hoped for Medicaid expansion to occur, but we know that did not happen.

Rep. Toby Barker (R-Hattiesburg)

During this summer's Medicaid special session, the tea party-led Legislature rejected a proposal to expand Medicaid eligibility in the state. Among those voting no were Hattiesburg's Representative, Toby Barker. This expansion would assist his financially-strapped hospital by plugging financial holes so they can continue offering services without interruption. Let's not forget that the Forrest Health System is one of the largest employers in the area. All that aside, Barker took his marching orders from Speaker Gunn and voted against a plan that would have helped his hospitals and his district.

Sen. Billy Hudson (R-Hattiesburg)

On the other side of the Capitol, Hattiesburg Senator Billy Hudson was a lonely Republican when it came to Medicaid expansion. Hudson was quoted by the Hattiesburg American as saying, "If the money's not there and they (Forrest General Hospital) starts laying off people, it's going to hurt." He went on to say that "I’m told there’s about 6,000 jobs (in the Pine Belt medical industry), and that’s tremendous to the economy, even if you don’t care about poor people or sick people who need help — which I do," ... "We go crazy about getting a new industry in here that’s going to work (200 or 300) people at $11 an hour." Even the Republican President of the Forrest County Board of Supervisors acknowledges this isn't a partisan issue: it's an economic one.

Hudson understands the economic and human impact the Forrest Health System has on the Pine Belt region. Barker, on the other hand, seems more interested in following the tea party leadership of Speaker Gunn. While Barker is falling in line, one of his district's largest employers is pleading for assistance in staying afloat.

Sadly, the cases in Hancock and Forrest Counties are just the beginning. As more hospitals look at their balance sheets in the coming years, there will likely be more of them sounding the alarm that the Legislature needs to revisit its misguided approach to expanded access to Medicaid.

File under "We told you so": Hancock County's only hospital on the brink

Dire news out of Hancock County today as the county's only hospital looks for $6.1M to shore up its budget.   From WLOX:

Hospital leaders says they need the bond to finish post-Katrina reconstruction work and to resolve operating issues that have come up due to patients who fail to pay for services. 

The CEO declined to go on camera, but in a news release stated they also need the money to make up for decreasing federal reimbursements from Medicaid and Medicare. 

"It was almost a sense of shock and urgency," said District 5 Supervisor Tony Wayne Ladner.

Hancock County residents are now facing at a possible tax increase to fund the hospital's shortfall.

So let me walk you through this:

1. First of all, Hancock Medical Center CEO Craig Cudworth did more than just refuse to go on camera for WLOX.  During the special session dealing with Medicaid expansion, Cudworth refused to lobby for Medicaid expansion.  
2. That same Medicaid expansion, paid for by taxpayers from places like New York and California, would have helped solve the budget problem Hancock Medical now faces.  But as we know, Medicaid expansion didn't happen.  
3. So now, the taxpayers of Hancock County are faced with a potential tax increase to make up the hole in the budget created by "decreasing federal reimbursements from Medicaid and Medicare."

Now, don't think this is a one-time problem, or that it won't affect your local hospital.  Bear in mind that the Medicaid and Medicare DSH payment cuts are going to increase in severity going forward.  Hancock Medical is just the canary in the coal mine.

Senator Cochran warned us of this, if you'll recall.  

Failure to expand Medicaid to cost Greenville's Delta Regional $3.9M starting October 1

Well, it's not like Mississippi Democrats (and Republican U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran) haven't warned everyone time and time again.  Today, the AP is running a story on how the Phil Bryant-led effort to prevent Medicaid expansion is going to severely impact Greenville's Delta Regional Medical Center.  According to DRMC CEO J. Stansel Harvey:

With federal reductions set to hit starting Oct. 1, Harvey said the Greenville hospital is anticipating a revenue loss of more than $3.9 million.

That's because the federal Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments to hospitals are being cut starting then.  Under the Affordable Care Act (which is federal law whether you like it or not), Medicaid expansion was to replace the DSH payments.  Of course, Gov. Bryant led legislative Republicans to reject even a compromise on Medicaid expansion that would have kept the federal money flowing into Mississippi. and he was mighty pleased with himself.  Let's see if he's still smiling as hospitals start laying off doctors and nurses and cutting services.

Here's how the Mississippi House voted to reject $1B/year in new federal spending

This is the roll call vote in the Mississippi House of Representatives on whether Mississippi should receive an additional $1 billion in federal spending each year at a cost of no more than $65 million to the state budget.

Mississippi House of Representatives vote on receiving $1B in new federal spending

What does a "repealer" do?

There's probably been a bit of confusion out there today for folks who don't follow legislative inside baseball much.  One of the two big fights this morning was over amendment to add a 1-year "repealer" to the Medicaid reauthorization bill.  Here's what that means.

Executive branch agencies, like the Department of Medicaid, or the Department of Environmental Quality, are created by state statute.  Those statutes, of course, are written and passed by the Legislature.  Our Mississippi Legislature has kept much power for itself over the years by inserting language that automatically repeals the statutes that create these executive agencies.  These repealers force the executive agencies to answer the phone when your legislator calls them.  That, in turn, means that the agencies are more responsive to you as a citizen.  Why? Because your legislator has about 25,000 constituents as opposed to the Governor, who has about 2.8 million.  It's a heckuva lot easier to get your representative or senator on the phone personally than it is the Governor.  And the agencies have to answer to your legislator because of the repealer.

So today's Republican Medicaid bill was interesting.  It took the repealer off of the Department of Medicaid forever.  Rep. Toby Barker (R - Hattiesburg) offered an amendment in the Medicaid committee this morning to put a 1-year repealer in the bill.  Many thought this would pass, including more than a few hospital administrators around the state.  (They got played by House Republicans.)  That amendment failed in committee, but was offered again on the House floor.  It failed again.

That means that the Senate will have to make the call on whether or not they want to prevent the Legislature from ever having an opportunity to substantially debate Medicaid expansion, or even Medicaid itself, ever again.

That's why Rep. Herb Frierson (R - Poplarville) was being disingenuous when he said the Legislature could look at expanding Medicaid in January after they got more information.  Without a repealer, they can't.

BREAKING - House Democrats get their Medicaid expansion vote

The House Democrats, who had been fighting all year for the opportunity to have a vote on Medicaid expansion, finally got one.  On a 65-51 vote, the Mississippi House of Representatives voted to not expand Medicaid or to examine the Democratic compromise plan, which would have used federal money to purchase private insurance.  (Thus avoiding the expansion of the Department of Medicaid altogether.)

After the vote, Democrats did as they've promised all along, and the appropriations bill passed 115-1.  The action now shifts to the Senate tomorrow, where efforts are underway to place a repealer into the Medicaid reauthorization bill that passed the House today.

Congratulations to House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Bobby Moak (D - Bogue Chitto) on a masterful job of putting everyone on the record on Medicaid expansion!

An invitation to step in it: The Mississippi Ethics Commission's advisory opinions on Medicaid votes

The Mississippi Ethics Commission is a creature of statute.  The statutes that govern the Mississippi Ethics Commission both create the powers of the Commission and set bounds upon them.  Most importantly, they read in part as follows:

§ 25-4-17. Duties of commission.

The commission shall, in addition to any other duties prescribed by law:

(i) (i) Have the authority, in its discretion, to issue advisory opinions with regard to any of such standards of conduct set forth in Article 3 of this chapter. When any public official requests in writing such an advisory opinion and has stated all the facts to govern such opinion, and the commission has prepared and delivered such opinion with references thereto, there shall be no civil or criminal liability accruing to or against any such public official who, in good faith, follows the direction of such opinion and acts in accordance therewith unless a court of competent jurisdiction, after a full hearing, shall judicially declare that such opinion is manifestly wrong and without any substantial support. No opinion shall be given or considered if said opinion would be given after judicial proceedings are commenced.  (Emphasis mine.)

I've emphasized the portion of the Ethics Commission's enabling statute above because that's what's at the heart of the latest move by Republican Gov. Phil Bryant to force six Republican House members to vote against Medicaid expansion and for reauthorization at current levels.  On June 14, the Ethics Commission issued opinions purporting to "clear" the six Republicans to vote on the Medicaid issues.

Those six Republican votes are pretty important, because without those votes, Republicans can't reauthorize Medicaid without having a discussion about expansion.  (By the way, notice what I said there: without a discussion of expansion.  No one has said they won't authorize without expansion; Democrats just won't vote to reauthorize without a discussion of expansion.)  During the 2013 Regular Session of the Mississippi Legislature, six House Republicans recused themselves from votes on Medicaid funding and reauthorization.

According to the AP, the six Republicans are:

Rep. Donnie Bell of Fulton, who does marketing for a hospice provider; Rep. Bubba Carpenter of Burnsville, a paramedic; Rep. Becky Currie of Brookhaven, a nurse; Rep. Mac Huddleston of Pontotoc, who is married to a doctor; Rep. Sam Mims of McComb, a marketing representative for a health care company; and Rep. Margaret Rogers of New Albany, whose father is a doctor.

The reason those six recused themselves is because at the start of this past legislative session, the Ethics Commission said that someone in their position should recuse themselves.  On January 4, 2013, in Opinion 12-107-ER, the Ethics Commission said that when a legislator's employer would receive more than $2,500 from Medicaid, the legislator would be prohibited by "Section 25-4-105(1) from using his or her position to obtain or attempt to obtain a pecuniary benefit for the Medicaid provider."  That meant the legislator could either recuse from Medicaid votes (all of 'em) or quit working for the Medicaid provider.

Our state Supreme Court has not been so blunt with its interpretation of our ethics laws.  A very similar matter arose in the 1990s, when suit was filed against Rep. Bobby Howell and Rep. John Read, both financially interested in different pharmacies that were Medicaid providers.  Howell and Read were both found to be in violation of Article 4, Section 109 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 by the Hinds County Chancery Court for voting on Medicaid appropriations bills.  The matter was appealed.  In Jones v. Howell, Chief Justice James Smith opined:

They contend that there is no danger of self-dealing by Medicaid providers in legislative roles because the appropriations to Medicaid do not affect the amount that the providers are reimbursed. Similarly, there is no incentive for them to vote one way or the other on appropriation bills because the amount of money they make depends, not on how much money is appropriated, but on how many Medicaid recipients choose to use their pharmacy. We agree. 827 So.2d 691, 698-99 (Miss. 2002)

Ok, that's cool.  So under the law, the six Republicans who sought ethics opinions may vote on appropriations bills concerning Medicaid.

But that's not really the issue.

The issue is whether they can vote to extend the very existence of Medicaid.  And this is where the Ethics Commission has invited them, and Gov. Phil Bryant has told them, to step directly into an ethical pile of excrement.

You see, even the Ethics Commission itself agrees that voting to avoid a pecuniary loss is the same as voting to obtain a pecuniary benefit.  They even said so in a footnote in the opinions which supposedly cleared the six Republicans to vote on reauthorization.  In their haste to clear these six Republicans to vote against Medicaid expansion, the Republican-run Ethics Commission stated the following in footnote 2:

Avoiding a monetary loss or expense is equivalent to receiving a benefit. See Ops. Miss. Ethics Commn. 06-040-E, 04-108-E and 03-123-E.

And what has everyone been worried about happening July 1?  The end of Medicaid.  If Medicaid ends, no doubt these six Republicans, their employers, or their families will suffer a pecuniary loss.  So what would a vote to extend the existence of Medicaid be?  What else could it be besides a vote to avoid a monetary loss?

Sure, these six Republicans have been told that they've been "cleared" by the Ethics Commission to vote on the Medicaid issues.  The Ethics Commission isn't the end-all-be-all, though.  In fact, even relying upon an ethics opinion doesn't cover a legislator in court if the opinion is later found to be manifestly wrong or without substantial support.

Any guesses as to whether or not these six Republicans will have to sit around and wait on a court to decide if they have violated the Constitution and will be fined, forced to pay restitution, and removed from office?

Or how the courts will treat a blatantly political opinion that reverses course on a multitude of opinions on similar issues before it?

Wyatt Emmerich to Bryant, Reeves, and Gunn: Get real

Boy, this is a scathing editorial from a Mississippi newspaper man long known for his allegiances to Republicans.  Wyatt Emmerich, speaking of the Mississippi GOP's response to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, had the following to say:

So here we are. Mississippi, which represents one percent of the nation, is going to stand up to the United States of America and refuse to implement The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

Haven’t we seen this show before? Don’t we know how it ends? 

If I were dictator, our nation would have an excellent network of charity clinics and hospitals for the poor and the rest of the health care industry would be completely based on the free market. 

But it is not so and no amount of wishing otherwise will change this one bit. Can somebody please explain this to our governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the house?

It ain't for a lack of trying, brother.

He goes on:

Think about it. If someone offered you a billion dollars a year for three years, would you turn it down because they might not give you a full billion dollars in the fourth year? Of course not. You’d take the money while it lasted. This is not rocket science. 

This billion dollars would have a huge effect on the growth and prosperity of Mississippi. This money would fund hospitals, clinics, physicians and the entire health care industry in our state. In many Mississippi towns, the hospital is the biggest employer. 

Mississippi’s Republican leaders think nothing of giving millions to mega corporations in the name of job creation, yet they turn down a billion dollar economic windfall for our medical industry.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.  Kudos to Emmerich for stepping out there and cutting through the BS.

Medicaid special session set for Thursday at 10 a.m.

Well, here we go.  Gov. Bryant has called a special session to cover the Medicaid issue on Thursday.  I don't have the call yet, but will post it when I get it.

Politico: "Mississippi's Medicaid Plan May Fail"

In today's edition of Politico, Kyle Cheney, writes about the ongoing battle struggle floundering of responsibility from Governor Bryant over the seemingly obvious decision to expand Medicaid.

There are a couple of good quotes here, some that have become old-hat in these parts, including that of House Minority Leader, Rep Bobby Moak:

The federal government will pay for expansion for the first three years, then gradually scale back to paying 90 percent of the cost.

“I feel confident that the members of the House will make a decision that’s best for their district,” Moak said.

As well as industry leaders that see the need:

Mississippi has the most to gain from Medicaid expansion. Conversely, we also have the most to lose,” said Roy Mitchell, executive director of the Mississippi Health Care Access Program. “We’re at the bottom of all the health indicator lists. If we do not expand Medicaid, we will solidify our place at the bottom for at least a generation to come.”

 Hospitals and nursing homes, too, are fretting.

“We continue encouraging Mississippi legislators to come to an agreement quickly to fund the existing Medicaid program beyond June 30, so it does not cause any disruption in services to our nursing home residents,” said Vanessa Phipps Henderson, executive director of the Mississippi Health Care Association.

National eyes are on our state to do the right thing for its people, especially since so many partisan Republicans have already seen the writing on the wall. 

How far will Governor Bryant go to avoid giving Democrats a political victory?

And does he know that his actions could lead to his state's long term defeat?

Democratic compromise plan on Medicaid expansion doesn't expand Medicaid

Here are the details of the Democratic Mississippi Market-Based Health Insurance Coverage Plan, straight from Rep. David Baria (D - Bay St. Louis):

The Mississippi Market Based Health Insurance Coverage Plan is a compromise approach to achieving the same goal as expansion of the state’s Medicaid Program: providing health insurance to 300,000 working Mississippians at no new net costs to the state, saving money for Mississippi businesses, creating 9,000 new jobs, and making Mississippi a healthier state.

• Does not expand the Medicaid program: uses federal money instead to pay for premiums for health insurance plans that eligible working Mississippians would obtain through a state-based insurance exchange.

• Stimulates private sector opportunities & competition: uses the insurance exchange to create market-based health insurance choices and creates a pool of 300,000 Mississippians with the means to acquire commercial health insurance from state providers.

• Promotes individual responsibility & choice: all individuals who would have been eligible for insurance under the Medicaid expansion program will be eligible for this program. They will be responsible for working with the exchange to choose the best policy and keep up with the benefits.

• No net new costs to the state: In addition to the federal money that will cover 100% of the premium assistance for the first three years, the state will receive additional funds through increased insurance premium tax collections. The state’s regular Medicaid program will realize savings as some children who are covered by the CHIP program are moved to the plans obtained by their eligible parents. Administrative costs will also be reduced.

• Not an entitlement: the Market Based Health Insurance Coverage Plan will include a co-pay feature for all participants.

Displays from today's Medicaid press conference

Still not by a computer. These are the displays from today's Democratic Caucus press conference.

Chief Medical Officer at Forrest General Hospital writes in support of Medicaid expansion

For months, we've had politicians and commentators (myself included) go on and on about Medicaid expansion.  We've had a few hospital administrators talk about the need for expansion as well.  But what we haven't had a lot of is doctors themselves speaking out, and that certainly gave aid and comfort to those looking to stop Medicaid expansion.

That changed significantly Sunday.

Sunday's Hattiesburg-American editorial by Dr. Joe Campbell of Forrest General Hospital was about as  devastating a blow as one could foresee for the anti-expansion crowd.  Quickly and widely distributed over social media, the piece explains why the question of Medicaid expansion is not one of "supporting Obamacare", but simply one of keeping our hospitals open.

You can, and should, read the entire editorial here.

Sen. Billy Hudson (R - Hattiesburg) takes to the airwaves in support of Medicaid expansion

Showing that he's sticking to his guns, Sen. Billy Hudson (R - Hattiesburg) went on MPB this morning and spoke in support of Medicaid expansion. You can listen to the audio here: http://mpbonline.org/mississippiedition/ME052813/

Clarion-Ledger: Gov. Phil Bryant hints at Medicaid compromise

For months upon months, Gov. Phil Bryant has been adamant about not expanding Medicaid and not compromising on that stance.  But here's something from a story on the Clarion-Ledger website this afternoon:

The governor hinted during a talk show appearance today of a possible compromise plan in the Medicaid stalemate.

My, my.  Isn't that interesting?  Could there be a happy ending to this story for Mississippi?  We shall see....

GOP support for Medicaid expansion building; Sen. Billy Hudson (R - Hattiesburg) says Bryant should call special session to expand

Two months ago, Rep. Charles Busby (R - Pascagoula) was the first legislative Republican to voice support of Medicaid expansion.  Thursday, Sen. Billy Hudson (R - Hattiesburg) joined him.

At a meeting of the Forrest County Board of Supervisors, Sen. Hudson said he would support Medicaid expansion.  As for his reasons, he stated:

“Medicaid affects Forrest County more than other counties because of our health care facilities,” he said. “We have approximately 6,000 health care-related jobs, and with cuts to DSH payments, Forrest General alone would have to absorb the cuts by decreasing its staff by more than 200 jobs.”

Gov. Phil Bryant, of course, responded by saying he won't call a special session that addresses expansion.  I'm glad some more sensible Republicans are starting to speak out on this.

Thank you, Sen. Hudson.