The Republican primary divide deepens, utility companies questioned by the state and Indiana lags in primary and preventative health care.

From the television studios at WFYI Public Media, it's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending March 27th, 2026.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI, an association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.

Some Indiana state senators who voted against last year's redistricting attempt are now running for re-election, and they face heated primary races.

Caroline Back reports.

One notable Indiana Republican is throwing his support behind some senators.

Former Governor Mitch Daniels has been vocal in his opposition to the state's mid-decade redistricting attempt.

Some Republican lawmakers who voted against redistricting now face primary challengers supported by President Donald Trump.

Daniel says he's lending his name power to those senators facing heated primaries.

Daniel says the funding and influence from outside PACs and other national political powers should concern Hoosiers.

Are we going to let folks who have no interest in progress of Indiana, or the welfare of our citizens, determine who our elected officials will be based on their sense of how they hope to maintain national power?

Indiana's primary election is May 5th.

Is the redistricting divide amongst Indiana Republicans still at play?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Ann Delaney Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Niki Kelly, editor in chief at Indiana Capital Chronicle.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

So, Mike, will Mitch Daniels be an influential voice ahead of these elections?

Well, some people sure.

And certainly with a constituency of of people like me that thought mid-cycle redistricting was, was misguided.

you know, but but those people have to show up.

you know, I thought there's some interesting developments this week.

Greg Goode's opponents family endorsed, endorsed Greg Goode.

This week this week.

So these candidates are flawed.

The guy running against Travis Holdman filed.

And he tried to drop out, but he missed the deadline to drop out.

And now he's now he's running again and but not really running.

you know, so there's just there's some interesting dynamics in play when you're trying to like, haphazardly throw together like an opposition or a protest movement party.

Right.

Which is what this is.

you know, we'll see how it works out.

to the point my career, I've been wrong about enough that I could be wrong about anything, ever, anytime.

If I just stipulate.

But.

So we'll see what the outcome is.

But we could look back on this election year ago.

What a quaint idea that we were going to go from seven congressmen to nine congressmen and now we're fighting a war that the Republican base doesn't want.

I filled up my tank twice in the last two weeks, and for the first time ever, I can't fill it up because my credit card only lets me charge $100 if I'm feeling it.

I guarantee you everyone's feeling, you know, we're.

So we could look back on the outcome if we're.

If it's just a wipe out for Republicans in Congress.

but you know how funny that we thought we could go in and squeeze.

Squeeze in two seats out of Indiana was going to make any difference.

It's like throwing a cup of water in the ocean here.

But, But no, I mean, you know, it's great that Daniels and others are stepping up because that's what needs to happen for the outcome to be what we've some of us want it to be.

it.

Was a busy week.

We saw also President Trump come out in support of a number of candidates who were prior or he selected as, as potential, the support for primaried out of this election.

And, and we've seen, you know, a lot of a lot of names being thrown around, you know.

People he throws names around.

We're talking about the president.

I mean, he he denigrates anybody that he doesn't like or any women he doesn't like or anybody who doesn't agree with him about everything.

He's a complete megalomaniac.

And this is a battle, frankly, for the soul of the Republican Party in this, in these small districts, because it's the establishment Republicans who say, you know, let's be conservative but not crazy.

And the Trumpers who are willing to be crazy, I mean, they're willing to support him no matter what he does.

He's being led around the nose by the nose, by Netanyahu now.

And we're in a war.

We don't know why we're in a war, because supposedly they killed off the nuclear capability last year.

And of course, he did break the treaty, tore it up, as I recall, the treaty that had that under monitor.

I mean, the stuff that he does now, now he's saying or he said the other day that we're in the war, open the Straits of Hormuz.

Well, they were open before he bombed.

I mean, and yet these people that he selected who are to the right of Attila the Hun, are lining up only because they think that he's God.

And, you know, I hope that there's, you know, enough sensible Republicans to vote in the primary to realize that that's a big mistake to elect these guys.

Like the reason they voted no was because they heard from exactly zero people in their district that they.

That they wanted this.

Yeah, that they wanted this.

And so if you're running on a platform of something that was universally unpopular, except with a very small group of people, who like, who just thoughtlessly are just a yes vote, whatever.

Whatever, whatever, whatever you want to bomb Iraq.

Or four minutes earlier they were, but opposed to the same idea.

Yeah.

Niki, we also, you know, heard early on during the redistricting that there would be a lot of money behind the we are seeing some of that money coming in, and we're hearing from some incumbent, lawmakers who are saying they've never felt so attacked.

Yeah, I mean, districts.

That's why.

They're saying, yeah, there's a lot of, radio, TV mailers out there.

several of them through some dark money non-profits.

So we don't really know where their money comes from.

And, you know, I I'd love that.

You know, some of it is about redistricting, but they're bringing up votes from ten years ago that most of the Republicans supported for like, a gas tax or, you know, something like that.

and the challengers are honestly, there might be a few good ones in there, but they're not standing up for anything like their entire campaign.

Is that Trump endorsed them.

And so, yeah, it's it'll be interesting to see.

I think most of them are going to be fine.

I think they have long, ties and deep ties in their district.

And, and I think most voters will recognize that these are, you know, some national groups trying to control Indiana races.

Jon, do you think we will, you know, possibly hear from other Republicans, old guard Republicans here?

I wouldn't be surprised to hear from other establishment, Republicans or regular, normal, sensible, Republicans, the party that I think we were familiar with, before Trump, Donald Trump ascended to the white House.

but we talk about the money.

The money?

Yes.

We're seeing various groups and factions that are all out of state, which are pumping money into this race, but it's not all one sided.

You know, the president pro tem, I don't know how what the purse strings look like right now, but he's sitting on, what, $3 million that theoretically could be used to shore up, some of the incumbents, the folks who didn't go along with, with the mid cycle redistricting.

So I think neither side is going to be, you know, wringing their hands, saying we need money to get our message out.

And I think the point that has been made is a good one.

These folks are well known.

The incumbents are well known in their districts, and they seem to be pretty aggressive about trying to sample the the attitudes and the sentiments of their constituents.

In fact, Greg Goode was chronicled, I think, on the front page in The New York Times where he was having these hearings, which were overwhelmingy against redistricting.

And I presume that the other lawmakers, these are not they're not entering into some suicide pact if they're voters in their constituency.

You know, we're we're calling and filling their inboxes with demands that they support redistricting.

They might have voted a different way.

I think they're in touch with their constituents.

I think they have the the loyalty to a large extent of their constituents.

And I'd be surprised if, the makeup post primary day looks much different from what it is now.

Well, as a Republican, Mike, that we are hearing, you know, from even outside the state, like a lot of eyes are on what's happening with the Indiana Republican Party.

And we're hearing the core message is that we want to do Indiana.

We don't need national influence.

Is that where we where it might all end up?

Yeah, I think that's that's Mitch's point.

you know, and that is such a frustration.

I mean, I've run a lot of campaigns and as like as these, this as a political society became more nationalized, more tied to the national mood instead of uniquely local things.

you, the national money and these national groups follow that.

And the problem with that is like, if you're running a campaign, you turn on the TV and there's an ad running in support of your guy, and it's a message that's way off.

It's they're talking about, you know, it's it's just frustrating because that was my point.

Point along.

These guys do not care to Mitchs point about what is going on in Indiana.

They do not care what the next legislature does.

However it's made up.

They care about retribution.

They care about holding the line and proven that if you don't hold the line, you're going down.

We're taking you down.

And I think the reason so many people are looking at it is because you are looking for cracks in that, because you are trying to figure out we're entering we're a few months away from who's next.

Like it's not Trump who's next.

And so and then you look in his own congressional district, Mar-A-Lago went to the Democrats a safe Republican seat special election this week.

Democrat wins.

I do think this is more and more examples of that.

So your point Jill, that message you said it is the right one because it seems to me you don't want to argue which is more conservative, which is more Republican, which is one is, you know, in God's eyes, the right way.

But by saying outside influences that that message, I think resonates even with people who perhaps are supportive of Donald Trump in other regards.

Yeah.

I don't I don't know about that.

And the problem comes here.

Maybe, maybe Goode is more well known in his district.

But I bet you that if you started polling in these districts as to who your state legislator or who your state senator, I should say who your state senator is.

You know, I. Bet we get Trump.

I bet Travis Holcomb's name it in Markle, Indiana is pretty ty.

Or Linda Roger's whos been a very high profile business owner.

Like you know I don't know.

And what they're doing is they're not saying I'm running because I'm supporting redistricting in the midterm.

They're saying I'm running because I'm Donald Trump's hand chosen person.

And the question to me is, do Republicans look beyond that?

And and look at the analysis that you're talking about, that this is outside money.

This is retribution.

This is about redistricting.

You know, redistricting is yesterday's news, right?

Okay.

And we may focus on that, but I don't know how much.

I just like how.

Some Republicans, I gather, who would see those spots.

I'm handpicked by Donald Trump.

And that's the reason they're voting for the incumbent.

I mean, there are there is a group of Republicans who.

There are some a. Lot of them sitting here, one of them sitting here, there that makes know.

How it plays.

Mitch Daniels, that's two we know too.

It's time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we pose an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question Will Mitch Daniels support help Indiana Republicans who voted against redistricting?

Vote yes or no?

Last week's question posed to viewers should the state dedicate $1 billion to bring bioscience business to Indiana?

43% saying yes and 57% say no.

If you would like to take part in the poll, go to WFYI.org/IWIR and look for the poll.

The state commission that oversees Indiana's utility companies conducted the first phase of an investigation this week.

Zak Cassel has more on a public hearing with the state's five investor owned electric utilities.

The state questioned the companies on what they were doing to keep costs down, and how they are fielding customer concerns.

AES Indiana services the Indianapolis area company representatives say they're taking measures to manage build costs.

Infrastructure costs for new large load customers, like data centers, will currently be paid by the tech companies.

Brandi Davis-Handy is president of AES Indiana.

If one of these.

Large load customers, were never to, add you know, a megawatt to the grid, they are on the hook for the cost incurred for both the generation, the transmission and the distribution that we are building out.

She says the recent announcement that BlackRock plans to buy the company will not shift new costs to existing customers.

So, Andy, Ann, do you think the utilities offered any solutions that we heard this week.

The solution.

they don't even need an investigation.

Former Senator Zay just has to look at the legislation the Republicans have passed for the last 22 years, allowing these rates to be the average, homeowner pay more than anyone else in the Midwest.

Everybody's electric rates went up this last year.

We went up number two in the country.

And it's all because of policies the Republicans have adopted for decades.

So they don't need an investigation.

And it's kind of hard to to fault the utilities for taking advantage of, you know, the money that the legislature has given them.

I mean, it's just it's ridiculous.

They have been in control.

The rates have skyrocketed.

Finally, people have said enough and now they're realizing there's a problem.

Well.

Well, IURC chair Andy Zay did say that.

We will have some answers here in the in the short term.

What might those look like, do you think, Mike.

Well, they passed House Bill 1002 this year.

So they moved to they moved to this kind of performance based rating system.

Right.

But that that theoretically could lower bills.

You know, one thing we learned from the utilities is, you know, usage doesn't matter.

I residential rates went up.

What they say 45% and rate and homeowner bills went up 33% in November and December because because usage went up so much.

and they didn't they didn't touch the actual rate.

It was just they were used more they used more energy.

And then but there's a lot of different factors.

So yeah, it's usage.

Yes.

It's the IURC setting rates that are, that are appropriate and, and but also while also balancing out, supporting the investment in the actual infrastructure that that's required to be built to turn the light on.

but then the Trump administration this week, you know, we have no control over the federal government coming in and telling NIPSCO and CenterPoint they can't close their coal plants.

You know, and so the part of this is the industry saying we have cheaper ways to produce energy, and we don't decide year in and year out how to do that.

We decide 40 or 50 years at a time.

Right.

And so you go, you're not closing a coal plant.

It's like that's just going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars a year, is what NIPSCO said this week.

you know, so they're just like, it's like a four headed monster, right?

Of, like of, like, usage.

The governor's the IURC, the federal government, and they've all got to work towards the same towards the same goal.

They're not going to work.

There's the same goal.

They're not going to get cheap electricity.

It's like health insurance, right?

It's like I passed a policy.

So my health insurance rate went up 20% instead of 25%.

And the public's not going to look at that and go, thanks.

Yeah, yeah.

No.

Niki, do you think it is you know, so many layers of the problem he mentioned, you know, the coal NIPSCO saying that they had to I mean.

One has their own theory on what's causing it.

Right?

Some people say, well, the fact that we're moving away from coal and going to renewables, causing it, other people say no, it's that our grid is needs upgraded and there's no way around that.

obviously lawmakers have allowed them to add trackers on to everything every time.

You know, we're all paying more on gas.

Guess what?

They're paying more in gas, too.

And they get to recover it from you because lawmakers said they could.

So, I think the funniest tweet I saw today or this week was someone saying that IURC is absolutely going to get to the bottom of why the IURC approved all these rate increases.

And Jon is that we started a listening sessions around the state as well.

And, you know, I think we're going to hear from a lot of consumers who have just lost the trust.

I think they're that's a safe bet.

there will be a lot of frustration on the part of ratepayers, but it is a very complex situation for all the reasons that have been spelled out here.

and if anything, I think the message what we're seeing here is a focus on this issue.

I mean, it's not as if this came out of nowhere.

People have been watching their increase, their bills increase.

But this governor has made it a priority.

and and he's a has his marching orders.

And so, you know, these kinds of hearings that are taking place, the these are the first time they've done that.

So I don't know if if necessarily coupled with 1002, the new, performance based rate, benchmarking and so forth, if all together that has a tangible, quantifiable, you know, totally identifiable impact or not.

But what happens in the meantime is politicians can say.

I'm.

Doing we're doing something.

We've had these unprecedented hearings.

We're listening.

Well, it's on.

We're having they call it an investigation, which is a word that, you know, hearings.

So they're going to issue a report.

I guess it means that there's an antagonist and there's a bad guy.

There's somebody wearing a black hat and somebody wearing a white hat.

And I guess IURC now is going to be the sheriff that comes in to dodge, I think.

Hoosiers just because everybody.

Want to see results.

Yeah.

Well Indiana also lags behind other states and primary and preventative care, according to a new report.

As Ben Thorp reports, the study comes as a number of providers are worried that legislative changes this year could further worsen existing problems with health care access.

The report found that Indiana lags behind the nation in the number of primary care providers.

Employer sponsored health care spending on primary care is also significant, lower than the national average.

Aperna Soni is a lead author on the report.

She says preventative care has significant benefits.

There is so much evidence.

Out there now.

It reduces spending and enhances value in the long run.

Sometimes it doesn't provide those outcomes immediately.

Some advocates in the state worry that as lawmakers try to reduce health care spending through Medicaid cuts, they're making it harder for people to access primary and preventative health care, increasing long term costs.

Niki, is Indiana ultimately making decisions that may make health care access worse.

Yeah, I mean, because what helps in the near term isn't always what helps in the long term.

And so, you know, and lawmakers and agency officials are looking at the Medicaid costs and saying, good Lord, we can't afford this or we're not going to be able to do anything else with our state budget.

So they're trying to save money, but, you know, there are always reactions and consequences from that.

Yeah and Jon, we know that, you know, preventative and primary health care up front will save money in the long run because people are not.

Oh, and there's a recognition on the part of many lawmakers who supported a spike in funding of public health initiatives.

The first one in decades, of any size.

A few, you know, sessions back now that's been sort of whittled away.

and it's maybe not as robust as and there's not as much zeal behind the notion of prevention as there was before.

But the problem is, we all know as a society that good education, good start for children.

You know, makes a better economy, better criminal justice system, keeps people out of prison.

We also know that preventive health care, you know, saves us costs in the long term.

But when you have lawmakers who need, you know, what have you done for me lately?

And they're running every 2 or 4 years, if there's something they can, it's almost sexier, I think, to say, we have this disease that's already an affliction.

We'll throw money at that because we can say, you know, it's easier to score points, I think, politically, than if you're looking ahead.

We just as a society, we don't look ahead 20 years.

Well, and I mean we now are consistently lagging behind in Indiana and vaccination rates and some of the screenings that people, are supposed to get.

And we're just falling further behind it.

Because we have to be the state has to be the provider of last resort.

It has to be, and Medicaid has to provide that service.

I mean, the primary care, problem is a problem across the country, and it's a problem across the country because many of the primary care practices have been, acquired by hospitals and hospitals are paying the doctors so little that they can they don't want to do that.

They don't want to.

They don't want to practice in that area when you're making less than your nurse, and you had to go through medical school and spend an awful lot of money to accomplish that.

So we've got to be the backup.

And instead of being the backup in this particular case where we're particularly affected by this, we're cutting Medicaids funding.

And it's the exact same thing as we do with preschool.

They go election to election.

They don't look at what the long term health of this country, of the state is going to be, and that's why it is so myopic.

And that's why we pay such a heavy price, both in education and in health care.

We have a real workforce issue, too, according to the report.

You know, I'm just not having those people here and coming to the state and wanting to practice in rural areas as well.

That's a problem.

I think that's the the rural I'm going to get the name of.

I'm going to butcher rural transformation, rural health transformation Task Force or what, in these hundreds of million dollars that are coming in, are trying to focus on that.

I'm on a Marion County Health and Hospital Corporation board, trustees, and and the health department just released, their community health assessment.

So just to give you a really local example, the difference between the neighborhood you and I live in and, and five miles south of us for life expectancy is 20 years.

It's a 20 year difference.

And so Eskinazi, which is also under the corporation.

the hospital under Doctor Harris is focused on exactly this prevention.

And because we know, we know we we see our we see the money and we can't we can't trust Medicaid rates are going to stay where they're at.

And that's a huge, huge part of the population.

The hospital services.

and so they've very much focus.

The whole the whole strategy has been around prevention, regular checkups.

We need cheap repeat.

And this is the way to think about it.

I know you can't think about it this way.

The person is healthier, is cheaper when they're walking in the door.

and that's how we solve the long term problem.

But to your point that you, the government doesn't government thinks two years at a time.

It doesn't think.

Right.

I I'm going to see this person from the time they're born, at the time they die.

Right.

And we're going to let them live a little longer.

Well, I think.

Part of the.

Equation we are talking about, you know, a number, a lot of people losing, health insurance.

And we've seen, you know, an estimated 100,000 people that will be losing health insurance here in the state.

And the report does point out, that having insurance, is a is a much better way to get people to the doctor.

There's no question about it.

And we've talked about this briefly before too.

But the cost to small businesses of providing that kind of insurance outside of Medicaid, obviously, but providing it is escalating so quickly that frankly, we're going to have to go to universal health care for all, like a Medicare situation.

If we're ever going to solve these problems.

And what do you think, Niki?

as far as this report goes, you know, what it is offering, trying to offer.

So, some solutions and ideas to legislators on next year who will be considering ways that we can address health care.

Yeah.

I mean, I think they'll be focusing more on health care next year.

They kind of avoided it in broad strokes this year.

So we'll see if some of these things, you know, can move through some of it's, you know, something as simple as allowing a nurse practitioner to, you know, cover more ground, more patients, maybe a little less training.

to try to get some more appointments are available for people to get in for the preventative services.

Some of them will cost money, though.

And that's where the rubber hits the road for for our budget next year.

Well, that is Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel has been Democrat Ann Delaney.

Republican Mike O'Brien, Jon Schwantes host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Niki Kelly, editor in chief at Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Reviews podcast and episodes WFYI.org/IWIR or on the PBS app.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

Join us next time because a lot can happen.

And in Indiana week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.