Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Hawver: health care is a big-ticket item in Topeka
[Martin Hawver, "Rising welfare costs are next budget showdown," The Wichita Eagle, 27 April 2005.]
Martin Hawver of Hawver's Capitol Report makes the astute observation that education spending cannot dominate legislative attention forever in this column from today's Eagle:
[T]he real issue next session is going to be welfare costs. The first indication of that came last week, when budget experts estimated that the state is going to have to spend at least $19 million between now and June 30 to pay for the basic health care and survival needs of the state's poor and elderly, and of children in homes where there just isn't enough money.
For the fiscal year that starts July 1, the experts predicted the state is going to have to spend $41.6 million more than was projected.
At the Statehouse level, those are big numbers. The state is predicted to spend $1.9 billion on Medicaid, nursing-home care and welfare for Kansans this fiscal year. About $1.3 billion of that is federal money, leaving the state to come up with state tax dollars of about $662 million.
Next fiscal year, the spending is expected to be almost $2 billion, with about $707.4 million of that being state tax dollars.
Unfortunately, as many have done with education, Hawver makes the mistake of associating spending with results:
Legislators are going to be asked to spend increasing amounts of scarce tax dollars on the poor, the old and children -- people most legislators don't see on a daily basis. It means that decisions on where to spend existing money, or whether to raise taxes, are going to pit the poor against everyone else.
That means K-12 education versus welfare. It means higher education versus welfare. It means state employee pay and benefits versus welfare. It means, ultimately, tax increases versus welfare.
What is the missing ingredient here? REFORM. On the one hand, Hawver is right. Without significant reform in Medicaid the decision will be between controls on spending or tax increases. But that need not be the case. If legislators are finally willing to address reform in the next session, then the possibility exists for increased quality of care at a reduced cost.
[Matthew Hisrich, "Staying the Course: Medicaid Reform in Kansas," The Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, February 2004.]
[Martin Hawver, "Rising welfare costs are next budget showdown," The Wichita Eagle, 27 April 2005.]
Martin Hawver of Hawver's Capitol Report makes the astute observation that education spending cannot dominate legislative attention forever in this column from today's Eagle:
[T]he real issue next session is going to be welfare costs. The first indication of that came last week, when budget experts estimated that the state is going to have to spend at least $19 million between now and June 30 to pay for the basic health care and survival needs of the state's poor and elderly, and of children in homes where there just isn't enough money.
For the fiscal year that starts July 1, the experts predicted the state is going to have to spend $41.6 million more than was projected.
At the Statehouse level, those are big numbers. The state is predicted to spend $1.9 billion on Medicaid, nursing-home care and welfare for Kansans this fiscal year. About $1.3 billion of that is federal money, leaving the state to come up with state tax dollars of about $662 million.
Next fiscal year, the spending is expected to be almost $2 billion, with about $707.4 million of that being state tax dollars.
Unfortunately, as many have done with education, Hawver makes the mistake of associating spending with results:
Legislators are going to be asked to spend increasing amounts of scarce tax dollars on the poor, the old and children -- people most legislators don't see on a daily basis. It means that decisions on where to spend existing money, or whether to raise taxes, are going to pit the poor against everyone else.
That means K-12 education versus welfare. It means higher education versus welfare. It means state employee pay and benefits versus welfare. It means, ultimately, tax increases versus welfare.
What is the missing ingredient here? REFORM. On the one hand, Hawver is right. Without significant reform in Medicaid the decision will be between controls on spending or tax increases. But that need not be the case. If legislators are finally willing to address reform in the next session, then the possibility exists for increased quality of care at a reduced cost.
[Matthew Hisrich, "Staying the Course: Medicaid Reform in Kansas," The Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, February 2004.]
Comments:
Post a Comment
