As folks are meeting with legislators, we’ve heard many legislators making a similar claim: "We are protecting people with disabilities." They argue that because they are providing more funding in this biennium compared to the previous one, they are "protecting" disability services. We thought you should have some helpful and timely information about this claim, given the many site visits and meetings you have scheduled next week.
Here are a few talking points to put that claim in context:
- The proposed health and human services budget bills in the House and Senate do provide funding in the upcoming biennium that is greater than the last two years-- about five percent more. However, total general fund spending in FY 2010-11 for health and human services was $10.2 billion. Without changing the rates paid to providers, the services available, or eligibility requirements, health and human services spending in FY 2012-13 is projected to be $12.3 billion.
- A five percent increase over the last biennium is insufficient to maintain the same level of services for the same number of people eligible for current programs.
- Under both the House and Senate proposals, there are no across the board rate reductions for waivered services. That means that services for current recipients shouldn’t substantially change, which is a good thing.
- However, there would be significant numbers of individuals currently eligible for services that won’t receive them. Also, there are other reductions that would significantly impact the quality of life for people with disabilities: elimination of coverage for eyeglasses and restriction in payments for dental providers limiting access to their services.
- As providers, we understand we must find efficiencies in our operations to help control the rising cost of care. This is why ARRM has offered our own reform ideas to reduce the regulatory burden and ensure dollars are spent on care, not bureaucracy.
While legislators are still working through the final budget and specific reductions are likely to change, the claim that disability services are "protected" is debatable. Hopefully, this information is helpful for members in understanding that claim, and will allow you to engage in productive discussions with your elected officials. For more detailed information on current proposals impacting providers and the greater disability community, click here for ARRM’s latest summary.
--Craig Wieber, Chief Fiscal Analyst