Last year, the Legislature overwhelmingly voted to support Gov. Jim Doyle's proposal to expand the program statewide. On the heels of that strong bipartisan support, Doyle put $20 million in his budget in February to expand the program over the next two years. The Senate kept the money in its budget, and the bipartisan Joint Finance Committee voted to include the money in a 15-1 vote. Journal Sentinel, September 2, 2007.
Unfortunately, the Wisconsin Legislature hasn’t allocated funds for the program, and the Conference Committee hasn’t put funding into the budget as they continue to dither about it.
The editorial writers concluded:
Time's running out. If the legislators don't act soon, they're going to be bumping up against federal deadlines and state and local timelines that could delay or even jeopardize the expansion, Doyle spokesman Matt Canter says.
Kudos to Aging Consortium and Make It Work Milwaukee Coalition members Tom Hlavacek, Altzheimer’s Association, and Barbara Beckert, Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations, for persisting in getting the story in front of the public.
And kudos to Consortium member Gwen Jackson, who wrote that it’s time to set politics aside. Scroll down in the article a bit to read her letter to the editor:
Nearly 2,500 people with disabilities in Milwaukee County are waiting; many are adult children whose aging parents are desperate to have community supports in place for their children. Many have no choice but to leave their own homes and enter nursing homes, which are far more costly than community services.
There are all sorts of good reasons to favor expanding Family Care, one of Wisconsin’s successful pilot programs for keeping low-income seniors out of nursing homes, to people with disabilities. Chief among them are the 11,000 people waiting for help the program can provide. Nearly as important is the $60 million in federal funds Wisconsin’s $20 million investment will draw.
Please write your legislators now!
Showing posts with label Family Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family Care. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Budget Matters: changes in the state budget
A couple weeks ago the Joint Finance Committee held meetings around the state to gather input on the governor’s proposed budget. If you want to know what came of those meetings and other deliberations, please read the following message passed along by Barbara Beckert, Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations. It’s long but full of useful information.
(The report was sent to members of the Make It Work Milwaukee! Coalition in which the Milwaukee Aging Consortium participates. The group includes organizations serving older adults, people with disabilities, children and families who want to “strengthen Milwaukee County through better health and human services.”)
From: Michael Blumenfeld
The Co-Chairs of the Joint Finance Committee (Representative Rhoades and Senator Decker) sent the following memo on Friday to committee members. Here is a link to it.
The memo basically does two things:
1) It outlines 48 non-fiscal policy items that will be removed from the budget and considered as separate legislation. These items reference the Legislative Reference Bureau's summary of the Governor's budget proposal that can be found here.
Some items of interest are:
BOARD ON AGING AND LONG-TERM CARE
* CBRF Requirement to Post Contact Information on the Ombudsman Program (Page 63, #9)
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
Repeal QEO Provisions (Page 137, #3; Page 138, #4; Page 464, #9)
HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
Medical Assistance - Long-Term Care
* Statewide Licensed Nursing Home Bed Cap and Bed Transfers (Page 290, #7)
* Repeal Nursing Home Bed Bank (Page 291, #8)
* Nursing Home and CBRFs -- Contesting Actions and Receiverships (Page 291, #10)
* Community Relocation Initiative -- Authority to Provide Services to Additional Clients (Page 292, #13)
HEALTH INSURANCE RISK-SHARING PLAN AUTHORITY
* Authority to Designate Insurance Types for Eligibility Purposes (Page 343, #4)
* Eligibility for Premium Subsidies (Page 343, #5)
* Pharmacy and Pharmacist Participation (Page 343, #6)
* Provider Rates (Page 343, #7)
* Fiscal Agent Responsibilities (Page 344, #8)
INSURANCE
* Minimum Coverage Requirements for Treatment of Mental Health and Alcohol and
Other Drug Abuse Problems (Page 362, #16)
* Required Health Insurance Coverage for Autism Spectrum Disorders (Page 363, #17)
* Health Insurance -- Insurer Disclosure of Current Procedural Terminology Code Changes and Explanation of Restriction or Termination of Policy Coverage (Page 363, #18)
2) It also lists what parts of the budget will be using the 2006-07 (current fiscal year) adjusted base as a starting point and what parts will use the Governor's proposal as a starting point.
This is a very important distinction. For items that use the current base as a starting point, the Committee will entertain motions to amend current law or the adjusted base rather than the recommendations of the Governor. Although the Governor's recommendations will be before the Committee, it will take a majority vote for them (or any other proposal) to be adopted.
For items using the Governor's proposal as a starting point, the opposite is the case; it will take a majority vote to remove the Governor's proposal from the
budget. Remember that the Joint Finance Committee is evenly split, 8-8, for
this budget deliberation. The bottom line: base budget items-majority vote
needed to add anything to the base; Governor's proposal items-majority vote
needed to remove a proposal contained in the Governor's budget.
Almost all of the DHFS budget, including Family Care, BadgerCare and other Medical Assistance expansions, will be "Governor's proposal" items, which will require a majority committee vote to remove. Among the "base budget" items is the "Health" section of DHFS. This can be found on pages 304-314 of the Fiscal Bureau summary.
The entire list of base budget items is on page 2 of the memo. For all other agencies, the Governor's budget (known as SB 40) will be the starting point.
In addition, the memo makes these points:
Children and Families. SB 40 recommends that portions of the Departments of Health and Family Services and Workforce Development be transferred to a newly-created Department of Children and Families. The Committee will consider the programs to be transferred within their respective agencies and will separately determine whether the new Department should be created.
Programs Funded with New Revenue Sources. There are a number of programs in a variety of agencies that are funded under SB 40 from new or expanded revenue sources. They include: (1) programs funded from recycling fees; (2) the county aid fund (real estate transfer fee); (3) provisions funded from increased vital records fees; and (4) the health care quality fund (cigarette tax, tobacco products tax, hospital assessment, and injured patients compensation fund). Rather than consider these items under each affected agency, executive sessions will be scheduled for each of these four funding sources. At those meetings, all items related to the use of those funding sources will be considered.
Action begins on SB 40 Thursday, April 26. For agendas and information go here.
(The report was sent to members of the Make It Work Milwaukee! Coalition in which the Milwaukee Aging Consortium participates. The group includes organizations serving older adults, people with disabilities, children and families who want to “strengthen Milwaukee County through better health and human services.”)
From: Michael Blumenfeld
The Co-Chairs of the Joint Finance Committee (Representative Rhoades and Senator Decker) sent the following memo on Friday to committee members. Here is a link to it.
The memo basically does two things:
1) It outlines 48 non-fiscal policy items that will be removed from the budget and considered as separate legislation. These items reference the Legislative Reference Bureau's summary of the Governor's budget proposal that can be found here.
Some items of interest are:
BOARD ON AGING AND LONG-TERM CARE
* CBRF Requirement to Post Contact Information on the Ombudsman Program (Page 63, #9)
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
Repeal QEO Provisions (Page 137, #3; Page 138, #4; Page 464, #9)
HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
Medical Assistance - Long-Term Care
* Statewide Licensed Nursing Home Bed Cap and Bed Transfers (Page 290, #7)
* Repeal Nursing Home Bed Bank (Page 291, #8)
* Nursing Home and CBRFs -- Contesting Actions and Receiverships (Page 291, #10)
* Community Relocation Initiative -- Authority to Provide Services to Additional Clients (Page 292, #13)
HEALTH INSURANCE RISK-SHARING PLAN AUTHORITY
* Authority to Designate Insurance Types for Eligibility Purposes (Page 343, #4)
* Eligibility for Premium Subsidies (Page 343, #5)
* Pharmacy and Pharmacist Participation (Page 343, #6)
* Provider Rates (Page 343, #7)
* Fiscal Agent Responsibilities (Page 344, #8)
INSURANCE
* Minimum Coverage Requirements for Treatment of Mental Health and Alcohol and
Other Drug Abuse Problems (Page 362, #16)
* Required Health Insurance Coverage for Autism Spectrum Disorders (Page 363, #17)
* Health Insurance -- Insurer Disclosure of Current Procedural Terminology Code Changes and Explanation of Restriction or Termination of Policy Coverage (Page 363, #18)
2) It also lists what parts of the budget will be using the 2006-07 (current fiscal year) adjusted base as a starting point and what parts will use the Governor's proposal as a starting point.
This is a very important distinction. For items that use the current base as a starting point, the Committee will entertain motions to amend current law or the adjusted base rather than the recommendations of the Governor. Although the Governor's recommendations will be before the Committee, it will take a majority vote for them (or any other proposal) to be adopted.
For items using the Governor's proposal as a starting point, the opposite is the case; it will take a majority vote to remove the Governor's proposal from the
budget. Remember that the Joint Finance Committee is evenly split, 8-8, for
this budget deliberation. The bottom line: base budget items-majority vote
needed to add anything to the base; Governor's proposal items-majority vote
needed to remove a proposal contained in the Governor's budget.
Almost all of the DHFS budget, including Family Care, BadgerCare and other Medical Assistance expansions, will be "Governor's proposal" items, which will require a majority committee vote to remove. Among the "base budget" items is the "Health" section of DHFS. This can be found on pages 304-314 of the Fiscal Bureau summary.
The entire list of base budget items is on page 2 of the memo. For all other agencies, the Governor's budget (known as SB 40) will be the starting point.
In addition, the memo makes these points:
Children and Families. SB 40 recommends that portions of the Departments of Health and Family Services and Workforce Development be transferred to a newly-created Department of Children and Families. The Committee will consider the programs to be transferred within their respective agencies and will separately determine whether the new Department should be created.
Programs Funded with New Revenue Sources. There are a number of programs in a variety of agencies that are funded under SB 40 from new or expanded revenue sources. They include: (1) programs funded from recycling fees; (2) the county aid fund (real estate transfer fee); (3) provisions funded from increased vital records fees; and (4) the health care quality fund (cigarette tax, tobacco products tax, hospital assessment, and injured patients compensation fund). Rather than consider these items under each affected agency, executive sessions will be scheduled for each of these four funding sources. At those meetings, all items related to the use of those funding sources will be considered.
Action begins on SB 40 Thursday, April 26. For agendas and information go here.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Do programs like Family Care encourage dependency?
A reader commented on Family Care and other programs like it:
Even though I see a lot of effectiveness with the program, I see first hand the abuse. The money spent on providing care for someone who should be challenged to do more for themselves.
The extensive equipment that is purchased so that the client has everything they want regardless of whether they physically need it or rather should have it.
Paying of family members to provide care even though the client should re-trained to do it themselves as well as family members who should want to care for others out of love not money.
I am hopeful but not optimistic that as the population ages, more people will realize that we need to help seniors HELP THEMSELVES so as to age more gracefully and safely.
Are too many clients being overserved, having things done for them that they could do themselves? Are we “enabling” older adults to be dependent? I’m hoping some of you will continue this discussion, because I don’t have any professional knowledge about it.
I do have personal experience with my mother, who’s now over 85, living in independent senior apartments, and needing more help to get along. She’s frail and no longer drives. Judging by this brave woman, who's always made decisions that would keep her independent and not "burden" others, elders eventually reach a point at which no amount of retraining can compensate for lost health and abilities.
And daughters like me are pressured by jobs to support their families and responsibilities to their own children. That can get in the way of expressing love through caregiving the way we might like to do it.
Even though I see a lot of effectiveness with the program, I see first hand the abuse. The money spent on providing care for someone who should be challenged to do more for themselves.
The extensive equipment that is purchased so that the client has everything they want regardless of whether they physically need it or rather should have it.
Paying of family members to provide care even though the client should re-trained to do it themselves as well as family members who should want to care for others out of love not money.
I am hopeful but not optimistic that as the population ages, more people will realize that we need to help seniors HELP THEMSELVES so as to age more gracefully and safely.
Are too many clients being overserved, having things done for them that they could do themselves? Are we “enabling” older adults to be dependent? I’m hoping some of you will continue this discussion, because I don’t have any professional knowledge about it.
I do have personal experience with my mother, who’s now over 85, living in independent senior apartments, and needing more help to get along. She’s frail and no longer drives. Judging by this brave woman, who's always made decisions that would keep her independent and not "burden" others, elders eventually reach a point at which no amount of retraining can compensate for lost health and abilities.
And daughters like me are pressured by jobs to support their families and responsibilities to their own children. That can get in the way of expressing love through caregiving the way we might like to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
