Loading...
Loading...

My name is Julie Van Orden, and I am a lifelong resident of Bingham County. I grew up and worked on a farm where my parents raised potatoes and wheat. I moved pipe in the fields and worked during potato planting and harvesting seasons. I graduated from Blackfoot High School, attended College of Southern Idaho in Twin Falls and received a certification from the ISU College of Vocational Technology.
As a child growing up on a potato farm, it was not uncommon to cool off in the summer by using an empty potato cellar as a playground. Running horses in the cellar as we played “pony express” was great entertainment. This was my experience as a child growing up in the Rising River area of Bingham County. Things have changed but there are still some common themes, playing outdoors and riding horses are good for the soul.
I married Garth Van Orden in 1978, and we began our own farming operation in 1982. We have four children-Shaun, Dillon, Jason (deceased) and Lisa. Our two oldest sons are partners in our farming business and our daughter currently lives in Kyoto, Japan where she works for an IT university.
My community involvement includes serving on the Snake River School District Board of Trustees (10 years). In 2012 I was elected to the Idaho House of Representatives and served for 6 years (Chair of the House Education Committee 2 years). I was then appointed to the Idaho Public Charter School Commission and the Idaho Potato Commission. As a substitute I filled in for former Senator Steve Bair during his last year in office before being elected to the Idaho Senate in the spring of 2022. During this term I was appointed to the Finance Committee and as the chair for the Health and Welfare Committee.
Being involved in local and state government has been an important part of my life, but I delayed serving outside of my home until a later time because my family has always been and still is my most important focus.
I am a member of the Republican Party because I believe that government overreach needs to be controlled. Regulations should only be used when they are a benefit to citizens. Making sure there is accountability attached to public dollars is critical in implementing programs that are useful and meaningful. I strongly support parental involvement in education, I know the 2nd Amendment is a right that is never to be infringed, and I am well versed in the agricultural needs of our community and state.
Here is my personal email address ([email protected]) and my phone number (208-684-4052).
Here We Have Idaho is a local radio show heard on KSPD 790 AM and 94.5 FM at 4pm on Wednesdays and Fridays. Here We Have Idaho is a show focusing on celebrating Idaho and all that makes Idaho great. Hear We Have Idaho will focus on the issues and events that impact Idaho’s citizens and families. Each week we will visit those that are writing Idaho’s story and keeping the spirit of our state song alive with hosts Victor Miller and Tom Luna.
https://www.790kspd.com/here-we-have-idaho/
Here we have Idaho is sponsored by First Class Cleaning, Tom Luna and Victor Miller.
Welcome to Here We Have Idaho. A local show focused on celebrating Idaho and all it makes Idaho
great. Here we have Idaho will highlight important issues and events that impact Idaho's
citizens and families. Each week we will visit with those people who are writing Idaho's
story and keeping the spirit of Idaho alive and well. Just like our state song says,
there's truly one state in this great land of ours where ideals can be realized.
The pioneers made it so for you and me, the legacy will always thrive. Here are your hosts,
Victor Miller and Tom Luna. Good afternoon and welcome to another episode of Here We Have Idaho.
We're just so grateful that you're joining us today. I'm Victor Miller, one of the cohosts.
My other cohost, Tom Luna, is not here this week, but he sends a warm hello to everyone.
And we just thank you again for joining us on Here We Have Idaho. And today we are really grateful
to have Senator Julie Van Orden join our show. And just a little bit about Senator Van Orden.
She's representing Legislative District 30. She's in her third term, although she did also serve
three terms in the House from 2012 to 2018. So she's been here for six total terms. She's a lifelong
resident of Idaho and Bingham County. She's graduated a Blackfoot High School and ISU Vocational
Technical Education. She's co-owner of Garth Van Orden Farms. She's a former commissioner on the
Idaho Public Charter School Commission and the Idaho Potato Commission. And her awesome husband
is named Garth and they have four children, two daughters-in-law, three grandchildren,
he's still up three or do you have more now? I have three and one, a great granddaughter. Whoa,
that's not your bio. You got to update the bio. That's crazy. Oh, you do. Yes, Luna is your... Yes,
there you go. And Tom Luna is the host cohost. So there you go. Cool. Not named after Tom, I imagine.
Anyway, she's on the health and welfare. She's the chair of that in the Senate. And she's also
on Agriculture Affairs and Resources and Environment. So thank you for joining us on here. We have Idaho,
Senator Julie Van Orden. Thank you for having me. It's nice to be able to interview on the radio.
I like it so much better than Bingham TV. Yeah, right. It's a much different element, right?
So we're going to talk pretty much about health and welfare issues because you're the chair there
in the Senate. And it's gotten a lot of attention over the last few years. You can arguably say,
since Medicaid expansion came in, it's been a top burner issue. So why don't we first talk about
Medicaid expansion and how Idaho became... How that came into being in Idaho. Let's start and set
the foundation of this conversation. So take us back to the Miss of Time 2018. Well, it was...
I will tell you that I was in the House then. And while my care had come in to play on a federal level,
with all of that, there... And the requirements in that had left people in our state in what
they'd be called the gap. So Medicaid, if you remember, everybody was required to have insurance.
Right. So there was this gap of people that were... that couldn't get on Medicaid because they made
too much. And then they couldn't get on the exchange to get a subsidy to buy insurance on the
exchange, but they... And they didn't have enough money to buy insurance. So that kind of left them
in this gap. So I remember for two years when I was in the House before 2018, the speaker of the
House then got bad key would come around and... And they were trying to work out a solution for
these gap people. And so he would come around, I have this proposal. What do you think? And so he
was telling votes to see what kind of votes he could get through the body on different proposals
like that forward. Two years, he worked on that. So when I got beaten in election in 2018, but
when that initiative passed, I was not surprised because we had tried to work on it for a couple
years. And the bodies in this, you know, in this building, they could not come to any agreement
on how to take care of this issue. So when the citizens took it upon themselves and ran that initiative,
I wasn't surprised that it passed because you knew there were a lot of people that were being
affected by this. And so... And the citizens of Idaho took it upon themselves to deal with it.
Right, so what through the initiative, right? Yeah, so what through the initiative process?
And it was like 70% 30, something like that. Yes, it was passed by quite a bit. And in my legislative
district, it was passed by I think 60%. Okay. So it was significant. And so that's where Medicaid
expansion came from. The numbers that we were given by the actuaries when at first, when they first
proposed it were pretty small, you know, it was like a smaller amount, much smaller than we're paying
right now for Medicaid expansion. I don't think we realized how ill our population was and then
COVID hit. Right. And during COVID, we were not able to adjust roles, right? Right. You had to just
keep taking people on. You couldn't do re-determinations to determine if they were eligible or not. So
it grew substantially then too. And so... And the people coming on were a lot more ill, I think,
than we thought. And so they were high users of the service. So I think that's why... And then we
had population growth too. And so I think that's another reason why the numbers and the usage went up.
And so it's become a, I don't know, six, five point something billion dollar bill for us now.
And granted, with that, we have a... We pay 10% in the federal government, paid 90% of that bill.
But it's still that to have the growth that it was having at the time, it was half a billion dollars of
growth every year, that we were having to find to supplement, to address the cost of this.
And just for context, the total health and welfare budget in 2018 was 736 million. And that's two
pieces, the health and welfare department, and then the division of Medicaid combined. Now that
number is in 2026 is expected to be 1.229 billion. So that's an increase of 523 million dollars
in a very short amount of time. And most of that driven by the Medicaid side. So let's talk a little
about the roles as you talk about it. The roles... Who is this program intended to help?
And when you talk about the roles, you know, people that have enrolled into this,
talk about how you've been trying to deal with managing the amount of people
that are... So that we can... The cost has been an issue, obviously we're in a down budget year.
Just talk about that general. What was the intent of who Medicaid expansion was supposed to help?
And how can we try to best manage the... So that we're actually serving the right people in this?
Medicaid expansion was originally... And I think it still is. It's helping what they call
working poor. So people that, like I said, don't make too much to go on Medicaid, but are struggling,
yes, to get insurance, basically. And those are people that have jobs. They're working, but they
just don't make enough. There are also elderly and disabled people that are on Medicaid expansion,
also, I believe. And some of the ways that we would like to address it, and the federal government
evidently agreed with this. So last session, we passed health bill 345 that put in place the
requirement for... Work? Work. Work or volunteering? You could do volunteering. Yes, but you had to do a
significant amount of that, of volunteering, to qualify as work. So that's one of...
And I believe that was 20 hours, is that right? Yes. Okay. So, and the other piece to that was
we put in what's called cost sharing. And that would be a shared cost, like a copay.
And then the other thing we put in place would be checking twice a year on eligibility for
these individuals. So right now, we only check once. This would be twice a year that the department
would have to check on eligibility for individuals. And, you know, it rotates. But we felt like those
pieces were pieces that would address some of that. The work requirement was huge, I think.
And the federal government came back with the big, beautiful bill and put those pieces in place too.
Yeah, Idaho tends to lead in a lot of things too. And also in the big, beautiful bill, you know,
restfulcher had the no tax on overtime elements. So Idaho leads. I think so. So let's talk about,
I'm going to talk about the eligibility, the checking on eligibility twice a year. What are you
checking for to make sure that people are not taking advantage of the Medicaid and the roles are not
inflated unnecessarily? Well, there are a number of things that we check. But one of the things that I
will tell you, I'll go down kind of a different path here. Yeah, please. We want to be able to check.
And this is kind of an interesting thing. And I don't know how we'll do this. But people's assets,
because there are people that move here that retire or, you know, they've invested in a lot of
things. So when you look at their income, their income is quite low. Right. And, but yet,
they are, they're, yeah, they have, they have means. Right. And yet they're on Medicaid. And so
the whole kind of issues are the ones that I think that are some of them that we want to look at.
People that also are not taking jobs because it would bump them up over that threshold. So,
so we want to check on those things and make sure that we're serving the people that actually need
that's everybody's intention to be able to do that. And it's interesting. I just was on a call with
a couple of my colleagues from the house for a chamber. And one of them helps people, you know,
with their insurance needs. And he said, you know, Medicaid doesn't cost the state anything
until people use it. Right. And that's true. That's true. So that's another little
and, you know, informational fact to have out there. And I don't know how we incentivize
or disincentivize the use of it. Right. But we're looking, we're looking at the co-pays would be one
thing, I think. But just making sure that people are doing the things that they're doing and
not abusing the system. And then we are capturing the people that actually need it.
So let's talk a little about let's frame what's happening this year, the reality of the state
budget. Right. So in 2025, the governor didn't did an executive order called the Idaho Act,
which cut 3% across the board, except for education. And this year, the J-FAC joint finance
appropriations committee is recommending an additional 1% for the fiscal year 2026,
an additional 2% for fiscal year 2027. So that would be 4% in 26, 5% reduction in 2027.
So one of the thoughts that I know Chairman Van der Wauda, who is the Chairman of Health
and Welfare in the House, he's been thinking of drafting a bill which would basically sunset
the current Medicaid expansion program every year, I believe, and essentially would allow,
would make people basically reapply your thoughts on that legislation.
Um, I think that's a, I, I'd like it because it's kind of a reset, reset and every year,
let's reset this thing and revisit it. Um, I think that it's, it's kind of like somebody
checking on you twice a year. Right. And now they're going to be checking on you every year and
making sure. And it's interesting though, Victor, that I see people that come, they complain
about it. And they're like, why, why are you doing this? It's like, this is state money
or giving, you know, and so we need to have checks on this. And I think that checks are,
are good, are a good deal. The other part of Chairman Van der Wauda's proposal that he would
like to see happen is that there's a cap on the number that we serve under this
under Medicaid expansion. He would like to see it be, I think he said 60,000 people.
Right now, I think we're upward of 70, 70, 75,000. Um, and he said, because
there, that we put a cap on, they would not be eligible to get on the exchange. So they would
be eligible to go to the, or they would not be able to get on Medicaid, but they would be able
to qualify for a subsidy for the exchange. Because right now, if you're qualified for
Medicaid expansion, you don't qualify there. So it would qualify them. And so they would be
able to get that subsidy and get the insurance. And just right now, the subsidy, what does that
come from another bucket of money within health and welfare? Is that a federal program
as a state program? I believe it's a federal program. A federal program? Okay.
So another topic, of course, has been the way in which the budgets are being done this year,
right? So some are, some are in the camp that, you know, cross the board, cuts are easy because
it puts the same burden on, on every agency. Some people have said, you know, it'd probably
better if it was a scalpel because there are some agencies that have been doing really well
in stewarding their finances. And we'd be punishing them by hurting them as much as some of the
agencies that may be running, not as lean. Where do you fall into that camp and where do you think
health and welfare fits into that? Do you think it's fair that that health and welfare should bear
the same burden as every other state agency in terms of the cuts? What's your thoughts?
Oh, that's a hard question. I think I'm in a camp where we should take a scalpel because I know,
I worked, I was on J-facts, so I got to see a lot of those budgets. I worked the health and
welfare budget and the education budgets, both K-12 and higher ed. That's not even at the same time
and I was chairing a committee over here too at the same time. So it was a lot of work. I loved it
because it kept me busy. Right. But I think the scalpel approach, I believe, is better just because
right now. So not across the board cut you'd like to see. No, okay. And to me, I would rather vote
on a budget that's been looked at in depth. So it's really difficult to vote on these budgets right
now that the base budgets have been hit by the rescission. So the cuts that were made in 2026
and the legislature. So that the base budgets that are coming through now have been hit with those.
There are some supplemental budgets that are working their way through right now too,
that I know J-facts have been working on that add some of those things back in or cut in the rescission.
But I don't know if those are going to pass. So can we just do a base budget that's been
actually worked on? It's sifted. Yes. But when it's hard to do because you might have
a number of agencies within those big budgets. Right. And there's over a hundred agencies.
So it's a lot of work. Yes. So you're in those base budgets, you're voting in this big chunk.
You know, you're voting for all these budgets that have been cut and you don't know what's
going to come in the supplemental. So for example, I just voted on too much yesterday. One was
the natural resources budget. I voted for that. Make sure that the 30 million for all of the
projects that we the 30 million dollars that we had put in code last year to go to
water projects. I'm not for recharging things like that. I wanted to make sure those were in there
that that was in there and had not been cut and it had not. So I felt comfortable voting for that
budget. Right. The next budget that came through was public safety. What had been taken out of
that in the in the straight across the board cuts were salaries for state troopers, you know,
the the money to higher state troopers. And so I wasn't comfortable voting for that budget
because I felt like I don't know if those were going to come back. And I would rather have them
be in that budget. Right. And public safety obviously is a number one issue for all Idahoans
and most Americans. It is. Yeah. And so I'm voted against that one. So we'll see what comes through
in these rescission budgets. It's it's been interesting. When they did split the budgets way back
it's been one two years ago. They split them out into because before we would vote for
entire budgets. Right. And it was like health and welfare budget, this division and the
supplementals that went along with it. Right. And you can vote up or down. Well, people felt like I
think they they were getting creamed when they went home and they voted against an education budget
that they didn't like. Right. And so they went home and they got hit in campaigns with
you don't support education. Right. So they split them. So now you can vote for the base budget
in education and go home and say I support education. Right. But any supplementals that come along
now you can vote against them. So you can go home and say I support education but I don't support
adding this much more onto your budget. Gotcha. I don't know if that's you know I can see one way
or the other but it was a lot easier to see those budgets and how they look when they come
as a budget bill to us. In totality you liked it better that way. Yeah, because you got to see
here's the budget, the base budget, and then here's the supplementals. So you could see the whole
thing and move through. But it's you can. I mean it is it is it is an experiment. It's two years
already we've done budgets this way. And the the proponents would say that it's actually
helped restrain the growth in government. And so in the and the other side the other
can. Yeah, the other cap is saying that yeah it was easier to understand when I got the whole
budget at once. So we'll have to see how that goes but it is what it is right now we get
them we have a maintenance budget that's brought and then supplemental budgets two different
budgets. So let's talk about how health and welfare your committee and since and representative
Vanderwoud is committee when the health and welfare budget is going to come up. Does your committee
get to get a preview to like the does the health and welfare department come to your committee say
hey here's what we're thinking about bringing to jfak the joint finance appropriations committee
give us a first blush what you're thinking like how are you guys involved kind of in the pre
budget discussions if at all and would you like to be if you're not?
Traditionally before now the the
um germane committees have not been involved in the budgeting process
as with the agencies that they basically they have come into them. I more and more I think
it's becoming more important for them and the last two years we've had the budget
analysts from um legislative services office jfak and jfak come in and talk to us about
different aspects of the budget but of course they give you a pretty high view of them
it's not like being there and working on those budgets. I've had some of the members ask if
there's any way that we can start being more involved in that. I know in other states they actually
have the germane committees address that so not only are you dealing with policy but you're
dealing with the budget for that agency too which is kind of an interesting thing other states have
their separate committees so they have your policy committee over here that deals with health
and welfare issues and then they have a whole nother committee that is actually a committee that
deals with the budget for that health and welfare in this case and what do you would you do you
think it would be helpful if the germane committees were more involved in kind of the pre pre-budgeting
work before it's presented to jfak for example um like what is your what what is your got tell you
we get the opportunity now as chairman of the committee to go into jfak and address
that budget health welfare budget so we get the opportunity to go in and talk to the committee
about the budget um we do ahead of time chairman van der Watt it does it different
but i just asked my committee please look through that budget if you have any questions let's talk
about it um and then kind of give me your opinion so i can write up some notes when i go in
to address jfak about that it would it would be nice if we could um
delve into the budget a little more the the only thing is if you look at these germane committees
ours is a perfect example of we would be just health and welfare but right it's very it overlaps
perfectly yes but then like our natural resources committee there's department of lands department
of you know all these different right and department of water resources yes you would have all of
those that they would have to look through a lot of budgets that's a lot of budgets right a committee
like that right and so i don't know how that would work here i think the way we're doing it now
and this year is the first year that the co-chairs of jfak have asked if they can come into the
germane committees and talk about the budget that's a good thing so um i i think it was hard
forum to go into like the resources to be at department of water resources budget you know
when some other budgets that they were working on um but they did come in this year and talk
about those budgets so we have about we have about two minutes so just quickly on the budget for
2026 2027 the department of health and human resources 2026 was about 235 million dollars
jfak is looking at 211 million the governor wanted 224 million so a little bit more of a cut
from jfak division of Medicaid 2026 994 million jfak is looking at 971 and the governor wanted
1.047 billion so there's about a 70 about 70 million dollar difference between the governor and
jfak they're on on division of Medicaid there's a bill house bill 759 senate bill 1312 which was
brought to increase transparency for taxpayers and support appropriation reductions for Medicaid
rates paid to residential bill attation providers do you want to talk about that um that bill and
whether you whether you support it um i support the bill it was um there's so many
different nuances to a bill like that um and that you just can't see in what's printed right
um there was simplifies it too much there was a lawsuit that came um a number of years ago that
it was called the kw lawsuit okay and so there were some nuances that came at that that
are that would address that the 20 million dollars that is being um removed from that budget so
right we're trying to deal with that put some transparency on um the res have facilities in
themselves and their finances so stay tuned stay tuned so that has not made it through has that
made it through the house and the senate yet or is that still it's on the house floor house floor
okay and you expect that to pass through the house floor i expected to okay and that would be
about a 20 million dollar reduction in the health health and welfare budget thank you
one of the governors well health and welfare and the governor's recommendations okay thank you so
much hey um thank you again so much for listening everyone to here we have Idaho and we've been
the distinct pleasure of having senator julie van orden join us again she's from
representing district 30 she's in her third-term although she did serve three more
terms in the house and we're just grateful for your chairmanship and your leadership of the
health and welfare a very tough committee but we're grateful that you are at the leadership of it
and uh thank you for joining us on here we have Idaho and as we always say before we sign off
god bless the great state of Idaho and thank you again senator julie van orden thank you
thank you for joining us today on here we have Idaho we hope you enjoyed today's show
and we look forward to visiting with you for a half hour each wednesday and friday at 4 p.m. on
kspd 790 a.m. and 94.5 fm till next time god bless the great state of Idaho
