Shakeup at the Utility Commission, an AI tool that targets Medicaid fraud.

And Indiana Republicans select a Secretary of State candidate.

From the television studios of WFYI Public Media.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending June 26th, 2026.

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

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.

Lawmakers and advocacy groups are responding to governor Mike Braun's decision to remove chairman of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

As Ben Thorp reports, the move came less than a week after the commission voted to approve a $71 million rate hike for AES members.

Braun called for the regulatory commission to reconsider its decision to approve a rate hike last week, before announcing the removal of Andy Zay as chairman on Monday.

Kerwin Olson is the executive director of the Citizens Action Coalition.

He says he isn't sure how much the changes to the commission will ultimately matter.

perhaps we need to have a more thorough discussion about changes to statutes and laws that govern the IURC, rather than necessarily trying to interfere in the process that way.

But Olson says he's glad to see the governor take affordability efforts seriously.

So what does this mean for Indiana ratepayers?

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

Democrat Ann Delaney Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana lawmaker.

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

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

So, Mike, will the governors sway over this commission now help consumers, do you think?

Well, if he holds rates in check, and I think he's I think he's serious about that.

There's a lot of the biggest problem, I think, that the state has and every governor has had this problem.

You don't control every lever that dictates what dictates rates.

And so, you know, you have the Trump administration coming in and renewing the order to keep coal plants open, that they're trying to retire and convert to natural gas, which over the long term would lower costs in the near term.

You know, there needs to be a, you know, a rate increase to capture the construction costs of those new of those new facilities.

But, so I think the governor is really serious about if he doesn't control the whole thing because those coal plants are more expensive.

We are learning now.

Okay.

What is Nipsco taking on?

What's Duke having to take on?

in terms of, keeping these, these old facilities that, that, that they want to modernize, going, but in the near term.

Yeah.

I mean, if he's going to come in and say, look, we're holding the line on rates, so we're not going to ask then.

Yeah, I mean, your rates are going to, you know, consumer rates are going to stay stay where they are.

I don't know, you know, long term we have to figure out we have to have a real conversation about like energy needs and what costs go into that and who should bear those costs.

particularly when the governor's said, like, you know, for data centers and other big end users, they're going to have to pay for a lot of this, which is totally fair.

so but look, I think his, his priority clearly is squarely on the, the individual ratepayer.

You know, it's going to make these big end users pay, you know, pay their fair share on, on their, on their energy bills and creating new capacity.

but yeah, I think it's, I think approved.

I think this move is pretty serious because, you know, Andy Zay wasn't, you know, hadn't probably unpacked his office yet before he got demoted.

He was very short time as as the chair of this commission and and yes, I mean, the governor swooped in pretty quickly and.

Yeah, the governor made a stunt.

That's what he did.

This all this is, is a stunt.

I mean, Zay and the commission acted within the scope of the laws and rules that Republicans have passed for the last 20 years, and then they're surprised when that happens.

You know, we didn't get to the point where we have the highest average utility, electric utility rate in the Midwest by accident.

It's by design of the Republican Party.

And if the governor were really serious about controlling electric rates or utility rates in general, he'd be out there saying, let's have wind and solar.

He'd be out there screaming at the Trump administration to let them modernize those plants.

He'd be out there saying, we want Kansas wind and solar.

And instead he does a stunt, and the stunt is going to have no effect because the laws underlying this and how these reasons have to be calculated and all are done by the Republican Party for the last 20 years.

Well, Niki, do you think it is, you know, then just a stunt putting different members of the commission in charge and then, you know, ultimately just moving them around because, rates are going to have to go up.

He wanted to send a message and that's what he did.

And he wants his members to get in line.

The problem for him is that, you know, there are decades worth of law and court precedent and administrative code behind and what the commissioners are allowed to do, they don't have they cannot just blanket say no to every increase, because then those utilities just take it to the court.

So there has to be some acknowledgment that, you know, they are limited in their flexibility.

And they are, you know, within their legal rights.

Jon.

And that's I mean, this is not just some wildcat operation.

yes.

They're it's a quasi independent entity, and it is supposed to act in the best interest of, of consumers and the industry and apply what the General Assembly has enacted and what the governors over the years have signed into law.

And if that's what they've done and the governor says, you know, this guy, even though it was only been here like 50 kilowatt hours, or shorter.

That's my own electrical joke.

I yeah, the only one I have.

All right.

And he's got to go.

It does send a message.

But in the end, if the commission reconstituted or with a new with new leadership rejects something that is legally not only bound by law, but precedent, this could end up costing more in terms of the legal fight, because and I think it's a given that it will end up in court and then it be now maybe, maybe we live in an era where fighting the battle is more important than the outcome.

And if the governor, we've seen that with many elected officials lately, it doesn't matter.

Ultimately, if I win or lose, I may have a real dog of a of a legal fight, but at least I'm fighting it.

And people want to be seen as.

With somebody else's money.

Well, with our money.

Yeah.

so, so ultimately it, the result may not be barring legislative action will be no different.

Perhaps from what we would have had the initial decision that with Andy Zay in charge.

Well, when he put Andy Zay in charge, you know, I mean obviously utility affordability has been an enormous issue here.

And it was kind of thought to be, you know, put him in charge and he'll take care of this.

But ultimately, what does this administration need to do to drive down costs?

I don't think you can.

I mean, I, I think you can you can bend the curve of increases.

It's like health care.

It's like health insurance, right?

It's like you can go make some policy changes that that soften the costs.

The cost side that the legislature has tried to, you know, tried to bend but but it's it's a loser of a political argument because it's, you know, it was supposed to go up this but only went up to this and you're welcome.

It's not like a sellable political message.

Right.

So if you if you can hold the line for I mean, I don't I don't dislike the okay, let's let's take a hard line now.

But then yeah, there's a reality that needs to be that needs to be addressed because there's federal requirements that these utilities have to follow.

There's cost that they they are required by law to take on, and that it's a math problem that money has come from somewhere.

Now, part of the problem though is like with investor owned utilities, when you're talking about that publicly, you're talking about investor returns, when you're talking about rate increases.

And it just is a it just sucks as a political as a political.

I talked to a national expert and he had the best point, which is he said the people always pay.

They either pay through higher rates if the government subsidizes than they pay their taxes, or if the utility feels like they cannot get enough to invest in the grid, then they pay through less reliability service.

So the people are always going to pay no matter what.

Yeah, but you can do some things, like for example, getting away from coal, which is yesterday's news, and going to wind and solar can have an impact.

And you're right, that's.

Where industry was going anyway.

Yeah.

Well that's what the industry is going.

That's not where the Trump administration or the Braun administration is going.

It is going.

In fairness, it hasn't necessarily been overly enthusiastic about wind or solar, even though we have some of the biggest arrays already in the country.

But it has been pushing nuclear and the small modular nuclear reactors, which I don't know.

If the General Assembly is discouraged.

When as far as I know, there aren't in the United.

States know we.

Have industrial grade solar companies.

I want to invest in the state now, but the legislature has been reluctant to step in and say, hey, local governments, you cannot do that.

Deciding who can put it where.

Yeah, yeah, you, you small town Indiana are not in charge of statewide energy policy.

And that's that's a threshold we have not yet crossed.

And it's got to happen because we can't keep letting these visas make statewide energy decisions.

Maybe it's time for that.

Also, time now for viewer feedback.

Every week we pose an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question are your utility bills unaffordable?

Vote yes or no?

The last question posed to viewers will federal changes that aim to provide Indiana schools with more control over funding and accountability succeed?

28% saying yes, 72% answering no.

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

Indiana's Family and Social Services Administration, or FSSA, has joined a new program to use AI to detect Medicaid fraud.

As Ben Thorp reports, the program is part of a national pilot project supported by centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the AI company Oracle.

State officials say the AI tool can be used to find waste, fraud and abuse in Indiana's Medicaid system.

In a statement, governor Mike Braun said he was proud to have Indiana show, quote, every other state how it's possible to administer programs low income citizens need while still protecting taxpayer dollars.

Indiana has already begun a 90 day data sharing agreement with Oracle in order to detect fraudulent claims before they are paid out.

Earlier this year, the FSSA secretary said they sought to recover $200 million of improper Medicaid payments.

The pilot will test whether the technology can be expanded to states across the country.

So Ann, do you think this AI tool will help detect Medicaid fraud?

You know who's been in charge of Medicaid in this state for the last 20 years?

If we have rampant fraud, whose fault is that?

Okay.

I mean, I don't have I don't have a lot of faith in Mitch.

rubes ability to negotiate a contract for this.

I mean, based on what he did with IBM in the past.

Remember that?

What was it?

A $1.3 billion contract canceled after two years because it just simply was awful.

I don't know what this is going to do.

And I you know, I think obviously uncovering fraud is important.

It's also important to provide the services to the people who need them.

And I would really like to see the same kind of emphasis on delivering those services to people in need instead of cutting them off, which is what they're doing.

And then holding up one scalp, they find somebody that's on there that shouldn't be.

And that gives them an excuse to cut another 100,000 people off.

We look at this exactly backwards.

We ought to be looking at how can we provide the quality services that people need.

Nobody voluntarily goes on Medicaid.

Okay.

They go on it because they really need it.

And we need to understand that they're not somehow evil or or, you know, wasting money.

They need the health services.

And I'd like to see the same kind of energy go into that.

And I really don't have an awful lot of faith in their ability to write a contract that can be enforceable.

Well, I think there's a pilot project, but obviously Medicaid in the state and around the country are undergoing many, many changes.

Thousands of people are already off of the rolls.

And, the secretary, Secretary Rube has said that he does want to try to regain some of the money that was lost under fraud.

And and is this the way to do that?

Yeah, that's what the private sector does.

It's what private payers do.

You know, so they're not reinventing the wheel.

They're just taking a private sector solution and applying it to the biggest payer in the country, which is Medicaid.

you know, we know that there's any time, like, any time that we know this from every other area, any time we're going to throw $20 billion a year into a program, it's there's going to be fraud.

You're going to attract bad actors and bad players, particularly when the when the rules are loose.

And so you got to go in and tighten all that up.

And what the state and the federal government have tried to do is say, look, you can't just check their eligibility once a year and then we're done, right?

You know, here's your Medicaid.

you've got to continually check these people, make sure they're qualified so we can.

So we do have the resources to give to the people who really need it.

This program started as pregnant moms and kids and the disabled.

And now it's 2.5 million people in Indiana.

for 2.2 million people in Indiana.

There are certain categories of people we have to check more than once a year.

We have never going to improve.

We have more than 50% of the kids born in this state are born into Medicaid.

You know, so if you screw that, if you screw the program up by not by not checking fraud and improper payments and fraudulent providers, then then yeah, you're cutting you don't have to cut off some population of people that really need this.

And so these this tool is like is essential if we can do it, if we use AI leverage technology to do this, great.

Because it's going to be cheaper than hiring hundreds of people in the Medicaid program to go in and manually check all this.

So they get providers, they get providers, and they recover the $200 million.

Is that going to go into services for the people who need it?

It does say returning to the Medicaid program.

Wasn't part of the growth, though, through waivers that were sought by Republican governors and and during, the Trump the first Trump administration or waivers that allowed Indiana people to be part of this program.

Again, these were Indiana governors.

They're voting the way a group.

I'm just saying.

So when you talk about it being I'm just saying a pregnant women and kids and disable it was Republican governors who saw it and, and then patted themselves on the back for saying, we have created these programs.

Well, in the only and.

Medicaid expansion, I mean, through Obamacare.

Right.

That was.

We adopted.

But it's because otherwise we were donor state to states that did expand Medicaid.

And we did we did have a problem with uninsured people in hospitals having to bear the costs of uninsured people walking through the doors.

So that was ultimately well, that's that's ultimately why we expanded Medicaid.

It wasn't because we were like huge fans of growing.

Also talking about, you know, saving money, though, and ultimately, you know, having people off the rolls, you know, they're going to be going other places, namely the Ed for, you know, for care.

And that, is going to sort of not help at all our overall health.

That will increase health care costs for everyone.

But as long as the state is saving money, that's what they're looking for, for the government.

I do want to know.

Yeah, I do want to know.

One thing which is this kind of issue is it's always about a balance, right?

Everyone's sure fraud is bad, and we should find the balance.

But you also have to, like, are we catching, you know, this tiny bit of fraud.

But in the meantime, are we delaying service through prior authorization to things like that to more people?

You just have to be careful, careful whether the amount of fraud you're finding is worth the impact of of delayed care, especially in a health care sense to the people who need that.

One little bit of irony.

I don't want it to pass.

We just talked a moment ago about rising utility costs.

One of the things that's causing the increasing demand is this these growing emergence and popularity of AI tools, which I'm not saying this tool alone is going to require its own dedicated freestanding data center, but a little bit of AI here, a little bit of AI there.

Guess what?

You have increased demand for energy.

And that means when you flip the switch, you're going to pay more.

Even if you do have the notion that the bills are going to follow the data center or follow the user.

Still, there's a higher demand and a higher premium, which.

Is why which is why the data centers ought to be paying their fair share, not of the utilities alone, but of taxes.

They're getting rebates on all the taxes.

And that's hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, which could go either to pay for your AI or to provide medical school.

We had to go back to the topic of energy.

We got to get into that AI discussion.

As much as I would have liked.

Republicans also gathered in Fort Wayne Saturday to select nominees for the statewide office.

As Ben Thorp reports, crowded and contentious race for Secretary of state led to the nomination of Max Max Engling.

And our nominee for secretary of state is Max Engling.

Top Republicans turned on current Secretary of State Diego Morales just weeks before the convention and pivoted to support Engling.

A staffer for US Senator Jim Banks Engling says he's the best candidate to beat the Democrats in November.

But the delegates kept coming to me and saying, we have to win in the fall.

We need somebody that can get us there.

And we don't have that.

Engling will now face Democrat Beau Bayh and Libertarian Lauri Shillings on the November ballot.

Independent Greg Ballard says he's turned in at least 52,000 signatures, much more than required.

But those will need to be validated.

so.

Niki, do you think the pic of Max Engling was ultimately a surprise?

No, I don't think anyone was really surprised by it.

When you have big names like Jim Banks and a lot of the, you know, higher ups in the Republican Party come out and support him, and they sort of built this amazingly quick overnight coalition.

So I think it was kind of expected.

I mean, we did hear though at the convention I didn't attend, but there were gasps after the first vote.

You know, when Diego Morales did receive such few votes and I many people saying they thought he would still be able to pull out a win.

So were you surprised?

Me.

I was really surprised that first vote was so low for him.

He was in third place.

Low.

I mean.

Like by a mile.

but but no I said what I think when I appreciate the course correction by the delegates, because they did recognize that like we've got a liability here, that could cost us that office in in November with, with Beau Bayh was going to run a strong campaign, be well funded, be organized.

and people around them know how to do this.

And so I did appreciate that we made a decision that we don't always make, which is, you know, we need we need a we recognize we need a better candidate because because there's just too many liabilities with with Diego.

Because some of the things he's done during his time in office.

And also really I think, you know, we all hope that, you know, Secretary of State goes back to what it was before, which was an office we've never heard of that.

We never talk.

About.

I don't think you're going to get that.

I think what's surprising about this is this is cemented, Jim Banks and their and the crazies in the Republican Party in control of the state party.

The governor been governor has been MIA on all of this.

So it's it's Banks and Rokita and Beckwith and all of the crazies controlling the nomination.

And it's going to be interesting to see what Diego does for the next five months.

Yeah.

You know, because who knows.

He could be in India with his wife, the taxpayer expense again, or buy another vehicle.

Who knows what he's going to do and what he's going to do on those recounts.

I think he's got a couple recounts.

Overseas would be interesting to see.

So it's that part of it, I think, is, is strange to have a sitting governor with so little power in his own party against Banks, who I think probably has forged a a relationship with Rokita.

I'm assuming to have Rokita run for governor in 2028.

We'll see.

Do you think that the Republicans have a better chance of keeping control of the office with Engling?

I think after 20 years of control, you point out all of the things that have happened and you've got Engling out there.

He's not going to go back to being a quiet secretary of state.

He's already calling for closed primaries.

Okay.

So we're talking about a secretary of state who wants to narrow the number of people who can even vote on who they're going to vote on in November.

And after gerrymandering, that's the only in some in a number of legislative seats.

That's the only contest, is it.

Just changes the declaration.

It doesn't change the people that were qualified to vote.

A closed primary.

Yeah.

It just changes when you declare something declared when you stand in front of the clerk, you declare when you register to.

Vote, but you have to declare you're a Republican.

The vote all right.

Or a Democrat or a Democrat.

One of the things the Republicans say that they will want to focus on at the convention, and also property tax will be another main thing you know, as this race really heats up, though, Jon, do you think, Max Engling is going to be able to shake it up?

Well, it's going to be he stands a better chance of retaining the office, certainly, than Diego Morales did.

But this is an unusual race.

I think that you can't apply the usual filters because of Beau Bayh because of the Ballard the likelihood that he'll be in the race as well.

That really calls into question a lot of how the support breaks, down.

So, and, and now three times he's talked about 20 years, and if you look back at the way we've turned over party control in, in Indiana tends to be we have Hoosier hospitality for about 20 years, and then we get like, get the heck out of my house.

we're overdue for change.

Back to to the party, to another party.

This could be the year, especially if you have Republican voters.

The overall vote is depressed, or, because of dissatisfaction with what's happening nationally.

it could be a year for change of of control of that office.

We're going to be keeping an eye.

And also this week, the Indianapolis Public Education Corporation, or IPEC, voted unanimously to ask voters in November to approve a new four year property tax increase.

Eric Weddle reports it would fund both Indianapolis Public Schools and the city's charter schools.

The board approved a rate of 37.2 cents per $100 of assessed value.

If voters pass it, the rate would generate about $88 million a year, split evenly between IPS and about 16 charter schools for a home at the district's median assessed value, that means roughly $221 more in taxes a year.

Not all members of IPEC agreed on the rate.

John R Hammond, the third, wanted it lower but voted in favor.

Our job now is to save this school corporation and to benefit our kids.

A tax levy for IPS approved by voters in 2018 expires in December.

So, Jon, how big of a risk do you think this is to Indianapolis schools that are under this new governance structure?

Well, it the cliche thing is to say it remains to be seen.

This is an entirely new structure.

This was the General Assembly that enacted legislation, and was signed by the governor that said, we will now, if you go to the voters and you get more money out of a levy, guess what you have to share.

So that's not unique to this situation.

That's the way it's done.

This, though, is different.

There were people from IPS and from the city of Indianapolis that were supportive of the of the construction and the, of this system, seeing it as a path forward.

There certainly are those who say this is just the latest in a long standing attempt to dismantle traditional public schools in favor of, well, anything other than traditional public schools.

That's exactly what's going on here.

This is the first blow to kill IPS mean they're going to IPS is going to wind up with less money from this.

Number one.

And number two, in two years, they're going to have to share the property taxes, too, with institutions that have no oversight to speak of.

They can pay their principals $200,000 and get away with.

It doesn't necessarily mean the quality of education is any better.

They can advertise to select students from IPS.

This is a design by the Republicans to kill IPS.

And frankly, I think that this referendum ought to fail and I think it ought to fail and IPS ought to declare bankruptcy and start again.

I mean, lawmakers spent a lot of time last year, you know, setting up this new structure for Indianapolis Public Schools.

if this referendum does fail, then, yes, schools are going to be in trouble here in the capital city.

All troubled a lot of places.

There's 40 or 50 of these on the ballot in November, including every, I think, every Northside school district that's, that's asking for more money than IPS is asking for.

We represent IPS and full disclosure.

So we spent a lot of time working with specifically Speaker Huston I mean, the IPS leadership and Doctor Johnson and Speaker Huston really partner on this along with the mayor.

It's one thing where they all agree this this new structure that they all they all agree on.

And the rate was set as such to to to incorporate that sharing of of of dollars with, with charter schools.

But yeah, I mean they've already found $24 million in cuts.

They've, they've had that they've had layoffs and consolidations.

That's what IPS needed to do to they do have a lot of like aging assets that support a population that's far larger than the actual population of the district.

So, yeah, they're trying to find efficiencies where they can.

But this is really important, really critical.

This pass.

Well, that's 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 at 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 in an 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.