LANSING – For months, the major stakeholders in the health and insurance sectors have attended and testified at hearings of the House Health Policy Committee on creation of the state’s health insurance exchange, but next week, Rep. Gail Haines, the committee chair, said the panel will seek and welcome input from residents on the controversial topic.

The hearing was moved to the House Appropriations Committee room in the Capitol because it is larger than the room the committee traditionally meets in at the House Office Building. And she doubled the meeting time to three hours to accommodate all the citizens wishing to speak. It will begin at 9 a.m. January 19.

Haines (R-Lake Angelus) said there has been an overwhelming response and she has heard there could be anywhere from 50 to 500 who plan to attend.

“They don’t feel as if their voice is being heard,” she said. “I want to assure them that their voices are being heard.”

Haines said she is not sure if there will be another hearing to seek public input, or if the committee will meet again on this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case later this year. The Supreme Court has decided to hold oral arguments in March on the individual mandate component of the federal health care reform law, and news reports suggest a decision would come sometime before late June.

Haines said the committee will not vote on the exchange until after the high court rules.

But she said she guarantees that the House will not leave the state open to a federally designed insurance exchange if the court finds the law constitutional.

“The House will be ready to move forward,” she said.

Critics and Governor Rick Snyder’s administration have argued that waiting to begin implementation of the exchange – which would create a website called the MIHealth Marketplace, and act as a clearinghouse for insurance plans – could lead to Michigan being forced to live under a federally designed model.

“If it happens, it will be a program for Michigan, written by Michigan,” she said.

If the U.S. Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional, she said the state might still want to move forward.

“The governor is very interested in doing this and we’re hearing him too,” she said.

“We just want to take a very prudent approach to all this.”

This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com

a>>