The table below lists key budget cuts in education from the Governor's proposal released last week. (Click on it for a larger version.)
Showing posts with label Governor's budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governor's budget. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
In the 2010 legislative session, Washington State will have to address the continuing effects of the economic recession. Governor Gregoire has signaled a willingness to take a more balanced approach between cuts and revenue enhancements. In the context of the total size of the fiscal impacts of the recession, however, her revenue proposal will only be a drop in the bucket and will not save crucial services.
During the last session, the state cut $3.6 billion in public services—cuts that will hurt state priorities such as the quality of education at every level, the availability of affordable health insurance, and the quality of our health care infrastructure. There were a few pieces of legislation that raised revenue, but no meaningful tax increases.*
The Governor’s budget proposal that was released on Wednesday follows in the same vein, with no revenue increases and $1.6 billion in cuts. However, the Governor also announced that she would introduce a second budget in January that would include roughly $1 billion in cuts and $700 million in revenue increases.
The Governor's proposal is a start to the conversation, but a bolder, more balanced approach is needed.
First of all, the $700 million would do nothing to save programs that help working families pay for child care, prevent costly health problems by supporting at-risk pregnant women, and clean up toxic sites. These are just a few of many cuts proposed in the Governor’s first budget proposal that she has not signaled will be protected in her second proposal.
And even with the Governor’s forthcoming revenue proposal, the approach the state has taken to the total budget shortfall will still be severely imbalanced. Combining the Governor’s proposal with the previously enacted revenue policy, revenue increases would only make up eight percent of the total solution to an over $11 billion problem (see graph below). Cuts in core public services will total 40 percent.
* Revenue legislation passed in the 2009 session gave the Department of Revenue more oversight of purchases for resale, authorized multi-state lottery agreements, increased out-of-state auditing, and opened new liquor stores.
During the last session, the state cut $3.6 billion in public services—cuts that will hurt state priorities such as the quality of education at every level, the availability of affordable health insurance, and the quality of our health care infrastructure. There were a few pieces of legislation that raised revenue, but no meaningful tax increases.*
The Governor’s budget proposal that was released on Wednesday follows in the same vein, with no revenue increases and $1.6 billion in cuts. However, the Governor also announced that she would introduce a second budget in January that would include roughly $1 billion in cuts and $700 million in revenue increases.
The Governor's proposal is a start to the conversation, but a bolder, more balanced approach is needed.
First of all, the $700 million would do nothing to save programs that help working families pay for child care, prevent costly health problems by supporting at-risk pregnant women, and clean up toxic sites. These are just a few of many cuts proposed in the Governor’s first budget proposal that she has not signaled will be protected in her second proposal.
And even with the Governor’s forthcoming revenue proposal, the approach the state has taken to the total budget shortfall will still be severely imbalanced. Combining the Governor’s proposal with the previously enacted revenue policy, revenue increases would only make up eight percent of the total solution to an over $11 billion problem (see graph below). Cuts in core public services will total 40 percent.
* Revenue legislation passed in the 2009 session gave the Department of Revenue more oversight of purchases for resale, authorized multi-state lottery agreements, increased out-of-state auditing, and opened new liquor stores.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The budget cuts released yesterday by the Governor include several items that would only end up creating more costly problems down the road. This approach will diminish the quality of life for thousands of Washingtonians now and in the future. It also defers higher costs to the state that will inhibit our economic recovery going forward.
Budget cuts to state investments that focus on prevention and other longer-term benefits include the following:
Budget cuts to state investments that focus on prevention and other longer-term benefits include the following:
- The budget would suspend all funding ($13.9 million) for non-emergency dental care for adult clients of Medicaid. This will have a direct impact on the health of 120,000 Washingtonians. Further, by not funding prevention and early treatment, the budget will likely increase the need for more expensive emergency dental care in the future.
- The budget proposes eliminating all state-funded early learning programs for three-year olds from lower income families ($10.5 million), directly affecting 1,500 children. High quality early learning programs set the stage for success in life and are expected to confer economic benefits to the state in the future.
- The budget significantly reduces funding for the Water Quality Program, a cut that will damage our ability to plan for healthy water. Ensuring the quality of our water through preventing and cleaning up water pollution has a direct impact on human and environmental health in communities throughout the state. Neglecting this government responsibility will be costly to reverse.
- The budget would mean that over 65,000 people would lose health coverage by eliminating the Basic Health program ($160.6 million) and sharply limit the availability of childcare assistance ($88.5 million) to working families. State investments in health insurance and childcare help to encourage and support employment for families that are struggling to stay out of poverty.
- Family preservation services seek to preserve or reunite families. They assist families in crisis by improving parenting skills and family functioning. Children are protected while being able to remain in their own families. The Governor’s budget would slash funding for these programs in half ($5.9 million).
- The budget would eliminate funding ($28.1 million) that reduces premature births and infant mortality by providing support for lower-income women with at-risk pregnancies. Without these support services, families and the state will inherit more costly problems down the road.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Governor Gregoire released her 2010 supplemental budget proposal this morning. It includes $1.6 billion in cuts to essential public structures that promote health, education, economic security, and safe and thriving communities.
As required by law, the budget works inside existing revenue constraints. The Governor acknowledged her concern over this budget and plans to release a second budget that will include necessary revenue increases in order to avoid the most damaging cuts.
The Governor is right to be concerned about the effects this budget would have on Washington’s economy and people during these tough economic times. A balanced approach that includes meaningful revenue increases is a better alternative.
The budget released today proposes completely eliminating or suspending efforts including (this is only a partial list):
As required by law, the budget works inside existing revenue constraints. The Governor acknowledged her concern over this budget and plans to release a second budget that will include necessary revenue increases in order to avoid the most damaging cuts.
The Governor is right to be concerned about the effects this budget would have on Washington’s economy and people during these tough economic times. A balanced approach that includes meaningful revenue increases is a better alternative.
The budget released today proposes completely eliminating or suspending efforts including (this is only a partial list):
- Basic Health, which provides affordable health insurance to 65,000 people.
- General Assistance for the Unemployable, which provides help to people who are unable to work because of disability.
- Health insurance coverage for 16,000 lower income children.
- Benefits for Medicaid clients including vision, podiatry, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, prescription drug assistance for elderly patients, hospice care, dental, and maternity support.
- Funding to send more than 1,500 3-year-olds to preschool.
- State support for all-day kindergarten in high-poverty areas.
- Class size reduction efforts.
- A program that equalizes school funding between wealthy and poor school districts.
- Tuition assistance for over 12,000 lower-income students.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Later this week, the Governor is expected to release her supplemental budget to close the $2.6 billion deficit that is a result of the ongoing economic crisis. State lawmakers will have difficult decisions to make in the upcoming months, as they find a way to balance the state budget. We encourage them to take a balanced approach that includes revenue enhancements as well as spending reductions to protect essential public structures such as health care and education.
Raising revenue is a better alternative for our state economy than budget cuts. In a paper for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Peter Orszag, now director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote, “In the short run (which is the period of concern during a downturn), the adverse impact of a tax increase on the economy may, if anything, be smaller than the adverse impact of a spending reduction, because some of the tax increase would result in reduced saving rather than reduced consumption.”
Last February, the Budget & Policy Center released a letter signed by over 20 economists and public policy experts in Washington State urging lawmakers to take a balanced approach, including revenue increases, when addressing the state’s budget deficit. “Implementing deep cuts in government spending and declining to raise revenue through tax increases is not an effective strategy to guide Washington State out of this recession,” the letter states.
The letter remains a potent reminder to lawmakers to consider all options for balancing the budget in the challenging months ahead. We certainly hope that they will.
Raising revenue is a better alternative for our state economy than budget cuts. In a paper for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Peter Orszag, now director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote, “In the short run (which is the period of concern during a downturn), the adverse impact of a tax increase on the economy may, if anything, be smaller than the adverse impact of a spending reduction, because some of the tax increase would result in reduced saving rather than reduced consumption.”
Last February, the Budget & Policy Center released a letter signed by over 20 economists and public policy experts in Washington State urging lawmakers to take a balanced approach, including revenue increases, when addressing the state’s budget deficit. “Implementing deep cuts in government spending and declining to raise revenue through tax increases is not an effective strategy to guide Washington State out of this recession,” the letter states.
The letter remains a potent reminder to lawmakers to consider all options for balancing the budget in the challenging months ahead. We certainly hope that they will.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Watch the 12-minute slideshow (audio included) below to get a better understanding of the state economic and fiscal outlook, including ideas for a balanced solution to the budget shortfall.
Click on the green “play” button on the bottom to begin the narrated slide show. The large black arrow on the right-hand side just skips forward to the second slide.
Note: if you cannot see the presentation try using the Firefox browser instead of Internet Explorer.
Click on the green “play” button on the bottom to begin the narrated slide show. The large black arrow on the right-hand side just skips forward to the second slide.
Note: if you cannot see the presentation try using the Firefox browser instead of Internet Explorer.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Tomorrow, the Governor is expected to sign a budget that has the unenviable task of closing an $8 billion near-general fund deficit, likely the largest shortfall in state history.*
How did we get to $8 billion? The graph below divides the deficit by 1) the shortfall that was anticipated in June 2008, 2) the increase in cost estimates since June 2008, and 3) the decrease in revenue expectations since June 2008.
About one quarter of the $8 billion deficit was already anticipated in June 2008, after the Governor signed the supplemental budget. In 2007 and 2008, the Legislature maintained long-term investments in key public priorities, but failed to enact revenue solutions that would ensure funding beyond that biennium. As a result, after passing the 2008 supplemental budget, state forecasters estimated there would be a nearly $2 billion deficit by the end of fiscal year 2011.
While the forecasters expected a weak economy, they were not prepared for the economic crises that hit last fall. As the economy plummeted, the state’s deficit forecasts quadrupled.
Here’s why: a suffering economy takes a toll on the state budget both in terms of costs and revenue. On the cost side, the recession increased the need for public supports that provide economic and health security. In total, between June 2008 and March 2009 the estimated price tag of continuing current commitments rose by roughly $600 million.**
But the biggest problem for the state budget comes from the loss of revenue. Between June 2008 and March 2009, the official state revenue projection fell by $5.5 billion, an eight percent reduction. The largest component was a $2.9 billion decrease in expected sales tax revenue because of a sharp decline in retail sales. In addition, the housing crisis took its toll; revenue from the real estate excise tax fell by 25 percent from what was expected in June.
So that’s how we got to $8 billion. Tomorrow we’ll discuss what this year’s budget writers did (and didn’t do) to close the gap.
* Often, projections of budget deficits use estimates of additional policy costs that are not generally included in the maintenance budget. For this analysis, we are only including the stricter definition of the maintenance budget, which results in a more conservative estimate of the deficit.
** $600 million is a rough estimate based on unofficial Senate Ways and Means projections from Summer 2008.
How did we get to $8 billion? The graph below divides the deficit by 1) the shortfall that was anticipated in June 2008, 2) the increase in cost estimates since June 2008, and 3) the decrease in revenue expectations since June 2008.
About one quarter of the $8 billion deficit was already anticipated in June 2008, after the Governor signed the supplemental budget. In 2007 and 2008, the Legislature maintained long-term investments in key public priorities, but failed to enact revenue solutions that would ensure funding beyond that biennium. As a result, after passing the 2008 supplemental budget, state forecasters estimated there would be a nearly $2 billion deficit by the end of fiscal year 2011.
While the forecasters expected a weak economy, they were not prepared for the economic crises that hit last fall. As the economy plummeted, the state’s deficit forecasts quadrupled.
Here’s why: a suffering economy takes a toll on the state budget both in terms of costs and revenue. On the cost side, the recession increased the need for public supports that provide economic and health security. In total, between June 2008 and March 2009 the estimated price tag of continuing current commitments rose by roughly $600 million.**
But the biggest problem for the state budget comes from the loss of revenue. Between June 2008 and March 2009, the official state revenue projection fell by $5.5 billion, an eight percent reduction. The largest component was a $2.9 billion decrease in expected sales tax revenue because of a sharp decline in retail sales. In addition, the housing crisis took its toll; revenue from the real estate excise tax fell by 25 percent from what was expected in June.
So that’s how we got to $8 billion. Tomorrow we’ll discuss what this year’s budget writers did (and didn’t do) to close the gap.
* Often, projections of budget deficits use estimates of additional policy costs that are not generally included in the maintenance budget. For this analysis, we are only including the stricter definition of the maintenance budget, which results in a more conservative estimate of the deficit.
** $600 million is a rough estimate based on unofficial Senate Ways and Means projections from Summer 2008.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Today is the last installment in a special series on General Assistance-Unemployable, a state program that provides assistance to adults who cannot work because of disability and are not eligible for other programs.
We all hope that if we become disabled or struggle with a mental illness, we will have the economic security and support we need to recover, get back to work, and maintain a modest quality of life. The General Assistance-Unemployable program provides that for thousands of people in our state.
Washington lawmakers have proposed eliminating or reducing the state's GA-U program as a cost-saving measure. But what will happen in Washington if there is no General Assistance for adults with disabilities?
Recipients of GA-U have serious health problems that require ongoing medical care. The GA-U program offers health benefits in the form of fee-for-service medical coupons, or in Pierce and King Counties, a managed care plan. Without these benefits, GA-U clients are more likely to seek care in hospital emergency rooms and community health clinics which are required to provide health care regardless of a patient's ability to pay. This is not a cost-efficient choice for the state: Non-reimbursed health care in a hospital ER, for example, costs the state up to four times as much as an average doctor's visit.
The loss of medical benefits is also likely to lead to a worsening of physical and mental problems for GA-U clients. At the very least, this will prolong the time they are unable work and at worst, could lead to dire outcomes for clients.
What about eliminating the cash assistance provided to GA-U clients? Currently GA-U recipients receive $339 per month to help pay for basic needs. This includes rent for low-income housing, food, and medicine. With no income, some GA-U clients are likely to lose their ability to maintain housing, which will have an impact on their health and future employment status.
Eliminating General Assistance is not the right way for our state to go. Oregon, which got rid of its GA program in 2003, is in the process of reinstating its General Assistance program with support of the Governor’s office. Without assistance, disabled Oregonians found themselves in emergency rooms and on the streets, unable to become healthy and work. We are likely to see the same outcomes here in Washington.
We all hope that if we become disabled or struggle with a mental illness, we will have the economic security and support we need to recover, get back to work, and maintain a modest quality of life. The General Assistance-Unemployable program provides that for thousands of people in our state.
Washington lawmakers have proposed eliminating or reducing the state's GA-U program as a cost-saving measure. But what will happen in Washington if there is no General Assistance for adults with disabilities?
Recipients of GA-U have serious health problems that require ongoing medical care. The GA-U program offers health benefits in the form of fee-for-service medical coupons, or in Pierce and King Counties, a managed care plan. Without these benefits, GA-U clients are more likely to seek care in hospital emergency rooms and community health clinics which are required to provide health care regardless of a patient's ability to pay. This is not a cost-efficient choice for the state: Non-reimbursed health care in a hospital ER, for example, costs the state up to four times as much as an average doctor's visit.
The loss of medical benefits is also likely to lead to a worsening of physical and mental problems for GA-U clients. At the very least, this will prolong the time they are unable work and at worst, could lead to dire outcomes for clients.
What about eliminating the cash assistance provided to GA-U clients? Currently GA-U recipients receive $339 per month to help pay for basic needs. This includes rent for low-income housing, food, and medicine. With no income, some GA-U clients are likely to lose their ability to maintain housing, which will have an impact on their health and future employment status.
Eliminating General Assistance is not the right way for our state to go. Oregon, which got rid of its GA program in 2003, is in the process of reinstating its General Assistance program with support of the Governor’s office. Without assistance, disabled Oregonians found themselves in emergency rooms and on the streets, unable to become healthy and work. We are likely to see the same outcomes here in Washington.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The proposed budget cuts in state funding for public schools are indeed "unnecessarily deep." That's a quote from today's Seattle Times editorial. Unfortunately, the rest of the editorial argues in favor of school funding at the expense of the General Assistance-Unemployable program, which provides medical care and a bare standard of living for adults with disabilities who, as the Times acknowledges, have no other options.
Like our support for public education, our state's GA-U program reflects our priorities and values. The Seattle Times says that we currently invest in the program because Washington is "a humane state." But we can't consider ourselves humane if we provide economic security to our most vulnerable during good times and leave them with no support when times are bad.
There is a better option than pitting the elimination of state funding for school districts against core supports for people in need. These are both important public priorities. It's long past time we had a real public conversation about how to pay for them both.
Like our support for public education, our state's GA-U program reflects our priorities and values. The Seattle Times says that we currently invest in the program because Washington is "a humane state." But we can't consider ourselves humane if we provide economic security to our most vulnerable during good times and leave them with no support when times are bad.
There is a better option than pitting the elimination of state funding for school districts against core supports for people in need. These are both important public priorities. It's long past time we had a real public conversation about how to pay for them both.
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Budget & Policy Center is releasing a new policy brief today on the Working Families Tax Rebate. The paper details the need for revenue increases to address the state's historic budget deficit and the importance of implementing the Working Families Tax Rebate.
The Working Families Tax Rebate is an effective tool the state can use as part of a strategy for economic and fiscal recovery. It builds on the highly successful federal Earned Income Tax Credit, which lifts millions of people out of poverty nationwide each year. Washington lawmakers should consider raising revenue to avoid deep budget cuts that will harm the state and use the Working Families Tax Rebate to offset the disproportionate impact a regressive tax increase would have on lower income families.
To read the full report, please click here.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Every child, teenager, and adult deserves access to a high quality education that opens doors to new opportunities and prosperity. In recent years the state has made significant investments in ensuring an equitable education system in our state. These investments can be seen in early childhood education, elementary and high schools, and in our institutions of higher learning.
In the area of Education and Opportunity, the Senate budget:
Early learning
K-12 education
In the area of Education and Opportunity, the Senate budget:
Early learning
- State pre-school program slots (Early Childhood and Assistance Program) are reduced by 2 percent where programs are co-located with Head Start, potentially achieving a no-net reduction in pre-school slots statewide by taking advantage of new federal Head Start funding.
- Other initiatives that improve the quality of care are eliminated including referral for child care, a wage ladder for child care workers, and supports for families, parents and caregivers.
K-12 education
- A 93 percent cut to the voter-approved program that funds school district class size reduction, extended learning, early learning, and professional development.
- A 75 percent cut in the funds that are used to help equalize school funding across wealthier and poorer districts.
- A reduction in instructional staff for students in grades k-4
- A suspension in voter-approved cost of living adjustment for education professionals.
- Community and technical colleges see a 9% reduction in funding which would require tuition increases of 10% without other revenue
- Public universities see a 19% reduction in funding which would require tuition increases of 14% without other revenue
The state is facing a deep recession and state programs that provide economic security are more important than ever.
In the area of Economic Security, the Senate budget proposal:
• Creates new barriers for families that need assistance in moving into the labor market
• Significantly reduces cash assistance to adults with disabilities that are unable to work
One of the key resources for Washingtonians in poverty is the WorkFirst program. This program is intended to provide cash assistance to families while helping them find and maintain employment. However, the obstacles to finding employment are significant in the current economic climate.
The Senate and the Governor both propose a $68 million cut to the WorkFirst program. The Governor reduces the number of families served, including punitive measures that terminate benefits. The measures the Senate is proposing to reduce funding for WorkFirst are not clear, but both proposals do not respond to the increased need for assistance and the increased difficulty of moving into the labor market. In addition, it is unclear whether this policy change will jeopardize additional federal funds that are assumed elsewhere in the budget.
General Assistance financial benefits for adults who are unable to work because of disability were eliminated in the Governor’s proposal. The Senate has a 15 percent smaller cut, and anticipates 6,000 clients will not be able to receive assistance by the end of the biennium.
As the Budget & Policy Center digs further into the Senate budget proposal we will publish short pieces on each of the following budget areas: economic security, healthy people and the environment, thriving communities and education and opportunity. (See our budget analysis in the Progress Index)
In the area of Economic Security, the Senate budget proposal:
• Creates new barriers for families that need assistance in moving into the labor market
• Significantly reduces cash assistance to adults with disabilities that are unable to work
One of the key resources for Washingtonians in poverty is the WorkFirst program. This program is intended to provide cash assistance to families while helping them find and maintain employment. However, the obstacles to finding employment are significant in the current economic climate.
The Senate and the Governor both propose a $68 million cut to the WorkFirst program. The Governor reduces the number of families served, including punitive measures that terminate benefits. The measures the Senate is proposing to reduce funding for WorkFirst are not clear, but both proposals do not respond to the increased need for assistance and the increased difficulty of moving into the labor market. In addition, it is unclear whether this policy change will jeopardize additional federal funds that are assumed elsewhere in the budget.
General Assistance financial benefits for adults who are unable to work because of disability were eliminated in the Governor’s proposal. The Senate has a 15 percent smaller cut, and anticipates 6,000 clients will not be able to receive assistance by the end of the biennium.
As the Budget & Policy Center digs further into the Senate budget proposal we will publish short pieces on each of the following budget areas: economic security, healthy people and the environment, thriving communities and education and opportunity. (See our budget analysis in the Progress Index)
The Senate budget will be released today, three months after the Governor’s proposal. The Senate version is unlikely to offer a new vision for solving our state’s historic budget deficit in a way that is consistent with the state’s values. Rather, it is expected to be a new version of the same all-cuts strategy.
Our state’s fiscal problems are too big to be solved with an all-cuts approach. The lasting damage to Washington families and infrastructure by deep cuts will harm our ability to recover when the economy bounces back. The path to a just and equitable society is not paved by dramatic budget cuts that leave hard working Washingtonians with no health insurance, ambitious students with less access to college, and people who are unable to work with few options for financial security.
Instead, we need leadership from our policymakers that includes bold action on raising the revenue necessary to invest in education, community, health, and security. Washington’s households and businesses need these public investments in order to weather the economic storm and prosper as the economy recovers.
We'll be posting analysis on schmudget throughout the day, so stay tuned.
Our state’s fiscal problems are too big to be solved with an all-cuts approach. The lasting damage to Washington families and infrastructure by deep cuts will harm our ability to recover when the economy bounces back. The path to a just and equitable society is not paved by dramatic budget cuts that leave hard working Washingtonians with no health insurance, ambitious students with less access to college, and people who are unable to work with few options for financial security.
Instead, we need leadership from our policymakers that includes bold action on raising the revenue necessary to invest in education, community, health, and security. Washington’s households and businesses need these public investments in order to weather the economic storm and prosper as the economy recovers.
We'll be posting analysis on schmudget throughout the day, so stay tuned.
Monday, March 23, 2009
I appeared on King 5 TV's Upfront to discuss the crisis in the state budget. The conversation focused on potential health care cuts. Joining me are Paul Guppy from the Washington Policy Center and Rebecca Kavoussi from Community Health Network. The panel discussion starts at 4:10.
There are two segments that bookend the panel discussion: one focuses on the General Assistance - Unemployable program which is slated for elimination in the Governor's budget and the other focuses on the Adult Day Health program.
There are two segments that bookend the panel discussion: one focuses on the General Assistance - Unemployable program which is slated for elimination in the Governor's budget and the other focuses on the Adult Day Health program.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Deep spending cuts, such as those considered in the Governor's proposed biennial budget, would have severe effects on essential components of the state’s health care infrastructure, such as community health centers. Altogether, it is estimated that the Governor's budget would amount to a $250 to $350 million hit to community health center system. The table below summarizes the impact of selected cuts (click on it to see a larger version).
Community Health Centers have a unique role in the state’s health infrastructure. They provide a comprehensive scope of services to Washingtonians who would otherwise have limited access to quality affordable care. And they do so without regard to their ability to pay. In fact, 32 percent of their patients in 2007 were uninsured (see graph)
The cuts described above understate the situation faced by the community health center system because it also faces the impact of the recession. As people lose their jobs and therefore access to private health insurance, they are likely to become uninsured community health center patients. The need for these centers rises while their revenue falls.
Counting up the number of people who will directly lose coverage because of budget cuts also understates the effect on individual health care consumers. As community health centers reduce their services, it will have a detrimental impact on many more Washingtonians with lower incomes and special health needs.
Community Health Centers have a unique role in the state’s health infrastructure. They provide a comprehensive scope of services to Washingtonians who would otherwise have limited access to quality affordable care. And they do so without regard to their ability to pay. In fact, 32 percent of their patients in 2007 were uninsured (see graph)
The cuts described above understate the situation faced by the community health center system because it also faces the impact of the recession. As people lose their jobs and therefore access to private health insurance, they are likely to become uninsured community health center patients. The need for these centers rises while their revenue falls.
Counting up the number of people who will directly lose coverage because of budget cuts also understates the effect on individual health care consumers. As community health centers reduce their services, it will have a detrimental impact on many more Washingtonians with lower incomes and special health needs.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
I went on the TVW show "The Impact" yesterday to discuss the state budget. My dance partner on the show was Jason Mercier from the Washington Policy Center. This is the type of reasonable discussion we should be having about the state budget.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Monday, March 2, 2009
In these difficult economic times, the General Assistance-Unemployable (GA-U) program is under threat of elimination, when it is needed more than ever. Many people who receive help through GA-U were previously employed until their lives were changed by an accident or illness. It benefits everyone in the state to know that assistance is available if the same were to happen to them or someone they loved.
Leading lawmakers have insisted that Washington State is unique in providing these state-funded benefits and therefore, we can not afford the luxury of continuing the program.
They are wrong on two counts.
First, Washington is not alone in providing general assistance to disabled adults. Our analysis of national data shows that 31 states in the nation provide similar financial and medical assistance. Benefits differ among states and some provide assistance in certain counties only, but the notion that Washington stands alone in helping disabled adults is simply not true.
But what if it were? It used to be that Washington State took pride in its innovative approaches to health care and social services. We stood out as a leader on health care reform years before the nation began addressing the issue of uninsured adults and children. We continued to make strides in this arena when the Legislature passed a bill in 2007 with the impressive goal of ensuring that all children in the state have health insurance by 2010. These are the kinds of public investments that Washingtonians take pride in.
Second, the general assistance program plays a vital role in supporting the economic security and health of Washingtonians. Contrary to some opinions, not all recipients of GA-U will qualify for federal Supplemental Social Insurance (SSI). A 2006 Department of Social and Human Services report found that half of GA-U clients transitioned to SSI between 2003 and 2004. It is not adequate to assume that the federal system will absorb the needs of this population if we dismantle the state program. In addition, there is a significant backlog of applications to the SSI program that renders wait times of up to two years. If there are no state general assistance benefits available, the costs of which are eventually reimbursed to the state, low income people who have very serious health problems will likely deteriorate.
Cutting GA-U out of the state budget will not ultimately save costs to the state. It will simply divert costs to other parts of the budget that cover such areas as emergency rooms visits and public safety. A smarter approach would be to streamline our investments in the program. Our in-depth analysis of GA-U found that the state is likely to save money by providing comprehensive mental health and substance abuse treatment to GA-U clients. The state should also consider a managed care or “medical home” model of health care for everyone in the program and better screening of clients who may qualify for veteran’s benefits.
Clearly the economic crisis at hand is very serious and will require thoughtful consideration of all our options. State leaders should urge Congress to support President Obama’s plan (contained in his budget proposal) to to speed up federal administration of SSI claims, which will help move eligible Washingtonians into permanent disability benefits. But not all GA-U clients will be able to make that transition and the results would be harmful to them and costly to the state. Maintaining the GA-U program aligns us with the majority of states in the country.
Leading lawmakers have insisted that Washington State is unique in providing these state-funded benefits and therefore, we can not afford the luxury of continuing the program.
They are wrong on two counts.
First, Washington is not alone in providing general assistance to disabled adults. Our analysis of national data shows that 31 states in the nation provide similar financial and medical assistance. Benefits differ among states and some provide assistance in certain counties only, but the notion that Washington stands alone in helping disabled adults is simply not true.
But what if it were? It used to be that Washington State took pride in its innovative approaches to health care and social services. We stood out as a leader on health care reform years before the nation began addressing the issue of uninsured adults and children. We continued to make strides in this arena when the Legislature passed a bill in 2007 with the impressive goal of ensuring that all children in the state have health insurance by 2010. These are the kinds of public investments that Washingtonians take pride in.
Second, the general assistance program plays a vital role in supporting the economic security and health of Washingtonians. Contrary to some opinions, not all recipients of GA-U will qualify for federal Supplemental Social Insurance (SSI). A 2006 Department of Social and Human Services report found that half of GA-U clients transitioned to SSI between 2003 and 2004. It is not adequate to assume that the federal system will absorb the needs of this population if we dismantle the state program. In addition, there is a significant backlog of applications to the SSI program that renders wait times of up to two years. If there are no state general assistance benefits available, the costs of which are eventually reimbursed to the state, low income people who have very serious health problems will likely deteriorate.
Cutting GA-U out of the state budget will not ultimately save costs to the state. It will simply divert costs to other parts of the budget that cover such areas as emergency rooms visits and public safety. A smarter approach would be to streamline our investments in the program. Our in-depth analysis of GA-U found that the state is likely to save money by providing comprehensive mental health and substance abuse treatment to GA-U clients. The state should also consider a managed care or “medical home” model of health care for everyone in the program and better screening of clients who may qualify for veteran’s benefits.
Clearly the economic crisis at hand is very serious and will require thoughtful consideration of all our options. State leaders should urge Congress to support President Obama’s plan (contained in his budget proposal) to to speed up federal administration of SSI claims, which will help move eligible Washingtonians into permanent disability benefits. But not all GA-U clients will be able to make that transition and the results would be harmful to them and costly to the state. Maintaining the GA-U program aligns us with the majority of states in the country.
Monday, February 23, 2009
News last week of the dramatic increase in our state budget deficit - from roughly six to eight billion dollars - has prompted many to wonder how exactly we are going to get out of this mess. In a timely editorial, the Tacoma News Tribune has compiled the views of nine diverse movers and shakers on what should be done to fix the budget.
Remy is not alone in his thinking. A group of 30 state economists and public policy experts have joined the Budget & Policy Center in signing a letter calling for consideration of revenue increases by the Governor and state Legislature to address the growing budget crisis.
From the TNT: Earlier this month, we invited 24 current and former state officials, policy analysts and interest group representatives to suggest what lawmakers would do if they’re really serious about leveraging the economic crisis to make hard choices.Remy Trupin, Executive Director of the Budget & Policy Center, is one of the nine. His written comments call for a balanced approach:
Economists recognize the vital role that spending must play in reviving our state’s staggered economy. If Olympia ignores this reality, it would do more than violate our shared values. It would have an anti-stimulative effect that will deepen and prolong the economic crisis we face.A reasonable approach would combine surgical cuts with carefully calibrated revenue increases, Remy says. The goal is to protect critical public services without exacerbating the unfairness of our current state tax structure. For example, a temporary increase in the state sales tax or in sin taxes could be combined with a sales tax rebate to lower income working families. The Legislature passed the Working Families Rebate in 2008. If fully funded, it could fully offset the increase in taxes for lower income families
Remy is not alone in his thinking. A group of 30 state economists and public policy experts have joined the Budget & Policy Center in signing a letter calling for consideration of revenue increases by the Governor and state Legislature to address the growing budget crisis.
Friday, February 20, 2009
UPDATES BELOW
Today, we'll be in Olympia hand-delivering a letter signed by over twenty economists and public policy experts from across the state that urges the Governor, the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader to “consider the full range of options, including revenue increases, when deciding how to close the state budget gap.”
We will be meeting with Senate Majority Leader Brown to discuss the serious concerns outlined in the letter regarding the state's growing budget deficit.
This afternoon's preliminary revenue forecast is a wake-up call. It signals the need for a new approach to the economic crisis here in Washington. While the Budget & Policy Center has been calling on policymakers to consider all reasonable options for a long time, this forecast crystallizes the inadequacy of trying to address a budget deficit of this magnitude through cuts alone.
In terms of the state economy, the economists and policy experts note that "reducing government spending will have a more deleterious effect on Washington State's economy than would increasing revenue." In fact, as our Research Director Jeff Chapman notes, severe cuts to public investments in economic security and health would undermine the strong federal response that was just enacted into law on Tuesday.
What is needed now is a thoughtful discussion among policymakers that considers all options.
UPDATES:
1. Since the letter was released, six new economists signed on to the letter! The updated letter can be found here
2. The meeting with Senator Brown went very well.
(From left to right: Jeff Chapman, our Research Director, Peter Dorman from Evergreen, Senator Brown, Ralph Murphy from Evergreen, David Batker from Earth Economics, and me. Two more economists - Dr. Marjolein van der Veen from Bellevue & Shoreline Community Colleges and Alexander Rist from King County - were on the phone.)
Today, we'll be in Olympia hand-delivering a letter signed by over twenty economists and public policy experts from across the state that urges the Governor, the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader to “consider the full range of options, including revenue increases, when deciding how to close the state budget gap.”
We will be meeting with Senate Majority Leader Brown to discuss the serious concerns outlined in the letter regarding the state's growing budget deficit.
This afternoon's preliminary revenue forecast is a wake-up call. It signals the need for a new approach to the economic crisis here in Washington. While the Budget & Policy Center has been calling on policymakers to consider all reasonable options for a long time, this forecast crystallizes the inadequacy of trying to address a budget deficit of this magnitude through cuts alone.
In terms of the state economy, the economists and policy experts note that "reducing government spending will have a more deleterious effect on Washington State's economy than would increasing revenue." In fact, as our Research Director Jeff Chapman notes, severe cuts to public investments in economic security and health would undermine the strong federal response that was just enacted into law on Tuesday.
What is needed now is a thoughtful discussion among policymakers that considers all options.
UPDATES:
1. Since the letter was released, six new economists signed on to the letter! The updated letter can be found here
2. The meeting with Senator Brown went very well.
(From left to right: Jeff Chapman, our Research Director, Peter Dorman from Evergreen, Senator Brown, Ralph Murphy from Evergreen, David Batker from Earth Economics, and me. Two more economists - Dr. Marjolein van der Veen from Bellevue & Shoreline Community Colleges and Alexander Rist from King County - were on the phone.)
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Today the Budget and Policy Center released a new policy brief on Washington State's General Assistance - Unemployable (GA-U) program. The paper, entitled, "General Assistance: New Strategies for a Vital Program," outlines the value of GA-U, which offers economic security and health care to over 20,000 working-age adults with disabilities in our state. The Governor has proposed eliminating the program, a proposal that would have a very detrimental effect.In addition, the paper discusses how GA-U could better serve clients through implementing strategies that will improve outcomes and reduce costs. Included in these proposals are:
- Provide a medical home for every GA-U client
- Expand coverage for mental health and substance abuse treatment
- Improve state facilitation of eligible GA-U clients to federal programs
