Policy Spot Blog

Kansas Underserved Benefit from Enhanced Loan Repayment Funding

2009-11-04T13:14:00.001-06:00

Recently, two federal programs that provide loan repayment to providers in Kansas working in underserved areas obtained enhanced federal funding, the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) Loan Repayment Program and the Kansas State Loan Repayment Program.

On September 1, 2009, the Kansas Primary Care Office received federal funding through the National Health Service Corps for its State Loan Repayment Program. This funding doubled the amount of money available to health professionals serving in underserved communities and will allow for more State Loan Repayment Program awards. The State Loan Repayment Program assists eligible health professionals with up to $60,000 for the repayment of educational loans in exchange for an initial two-year service commitment in a federally designated Health Professional Shortage Area.

On June 2, 2009, the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) launched the expanded Recovery Act NHSC Loan Repayment Program. The NHSC offers a number of programs to encourage primary care health professionals to practice in America's underserved communities. Primary care health professionals in return receive up to $50,000 for loan repayment for educational loans. The minimum commitment is for two years. The site must be an approved National Health Service Corps site before a clinician may apply. Sites must be located in a Health Professional Shortage Area and have a sliding fee scale.

Information on both programs is available on the Kansas Department of Health and Environment website at http://www.kdheks.gov/olrh/FundLoan.html. Further information on the NHSC is available at: http://nhsc.hrsa.gov/. Also, please feel free to contact Barbara Huske in the Kansas Primary Care Office at (785) 296-2742 or bhuske@kdheks.gov.

Robert Stiles, Primary Care
Bureau of Local and Rural Health
Kansas Department of Health and Environment

Rural County Finds a Solution in Co-Op

2009-10-22T13:15:00.002-05:00

The Health Care Coalition of Lafayette County (HCC) has been developing the parameters of a county-wide health insurance co-op for the past two years. During the research phase of the program, we were able to determine that nearly 8% of our county was uninsured and that more small businesses were being forced to cut their benefits because of the rising cost of health insurance.

Because small businesses are not able to spread risk as easily as large (50+ lives), we determined that by “pooling” small businesses together we could not only spread the risk but also add more lives to the plan, making the co-op more viable. We have been working with our local health care leadership to provide incentives for the county-wide co-op plan including healthcare assessments or physicals for primary care and mental health, access to a health risk assessment on our workplace wellness website as well as transportation to and from local healthcare appointments to those individuals who financially qualify. These incentives set our plan apart from your average local insurance agency.

The goal of the HCC’s insurance co-op is to encourage healthy lifestyle behaviors, while providing incentives for patients to get routine exams relative to primary care and mental health service. The workplace wellness website also provides tools and resources for small businesses that purchase the plan.

The HCC continues to follow federal plans for health insurance reform—especially as it relates to advocating for small business options and more resources for rural communities.

Toniann Richard
Health Care Coalition of Lafayette County
www.HCCNetwork.org

Blue Dogs Bite the Hand that Feeds Them

2009-09-18T10:48:00.001-05:00

Recently there has been a swarm of press surrounding the issue of health insurance reform. This issue is the subject of one of the most contentious debates this decade, attracting hordes of voters (both for and against) to town-hall meetings and other events. Republicans seem stubbornly opposed to any reform of any type, despite their public statements that they wish to compromise. Throughout this debate, Blue Dog Democrats have been trying to put the brakes on reform in various ways, trying to please both conservative and progressive voters in their home districts. While a number of these votes are not important, we cannot afford to lose many more.

In a recent article from thehill.com, it was announced that 23 Democrats have said that they will vote no on health care reform. Some are definitive answers; others seem willing to move on the issue. Still, this is the same type of thing that we have seen from Democrats in the past on this very same issue. They simply do not seem to be able to hold the party together well enough to be able to pass sweeping legislation. They simply do not possess the lock-step mentality of the Republicans, and this hampers them immensely.

The conservative Democrats who block reform have got to be there for their people on this issue. I understand that those who live in conservative or highly contested districts must deal with the realities of their post. They must, above all else, maintain their roles as representatives lest they lose their seats to Republicans. In order to have any effect at all they must maintain the position.

However, it is a problem comes when a Democrat panders too much to their conservative voters. Quite frankly, if a Democrat cannot even vote yes on a staggeringly important bill which we may not have another chance to pass for another century, then they have no business in that party. If they cannot support a bill like this, when they are needed the most, then we may as well cede that seat to a Republican. We may as well because those Republicans will then have to play defensive toward the progressives in their district, and thus annoy their own caucus. Though our current majorities in both chambers may be nice numerically, these sorts of “Democrats” aren't helping anyone by deceiving their constituencies.

I do not feel that it is unreasonable to ask that these Blue Dog and conservative Democrats straighten up. To do this, their constituents will have to hold them accountable. We, as voters, cannot be taken in by them as they talk through both sides of their mouth. Yes, it sounds reasonable to delay a vote for a few more months – but this is just another delay tactic to wait until reform is impossible. Yes, they want to include conservative ideas in the bill – but only to cover their own backsides (rather than a sense of bipartisanship).. Yes, they may even claim that many in their districts do not support this bill. But when it comes down to it these Congressmen and women know that this is the right thing to do. We must see their double-speak for what it is – just another attempt to get re-elected. We must tell them what they need to hear – that if they stand a chance at re-election then they had better listen to us. We are the people they were elected to represent – the quiet majority. True, we may not scream at them now, as do their conservative constituents. But they need to know that if they fail to act, they will be made to remember us on election day.

Andrew S. Bailey, MSW
Co-chair, Missouri Association for Social Welfare, Western division
http://bootstraps.blogspot.com

Healthcare Reform: The Uninsured and Emergency Room Care

2009-09-10T22:20:00.000-05:00

One cannot avoid the healthcare reform debate going on in America today. Without a doubt, our healthcare delivery and payment system needs reform on multi-levels but it is important to deal with the facts and work to dispel misconceptions in healthcare.

One major misconception is that overcrowding in hospital emergency departments (ED) is due solely to the influx of the uninsured using the ED for basic medical needs. Actually, those with health coverage utilize EDs at about the same rate as the uninsured use EDs. In addition, it is an inaccurate generalization to suggest that the uninsured routinely use EDs for convenience.

While we are seeing more uninsured patients in our emergency rooms, they also are the sickest of the sick. This can be due to many factors: Health issues often arise “after hours” and sometimes even primary care physicians tell patients to seek treatment in an emergency room because of the availability of immediate testing or diagnostic equipment. It can sometimes be a challenge for the uninsured working poor or near poor to access basic medical care.

In addition, it is common for an uninsured patient to wait until a simple illness progresses in complexity until it is imperative to seek care in an ED. Often, the patient is so sick that he/she must be admitted to the hospital as an inpatient. Some of these patients are sick solely because they cannot afford their medications. For example, at Truman Medical Centers a majority of our patients have co-morbidities, meaning they have more than one disease. Many also suffer from mental illness. As a result, they may be prescribed multiple medications, which are difficult to purchase with limited resources. As a result, patients may choose what to fill, or take less than the prescribed dosage so that their prescription will last longer. In addition, because of limited resources, patients may ignore seeking appropriate follow up care after an ED visit.

It is crucial that any expanded health coverage include adequate prescription drug coverage, particularly for those who suffer from co-morbidities and because of health care disparities. This step, along with incentives to promote healthy lifestyles and wellness, would have a significant impact on health outcomes and on the cost of providing healthcare in this country.

In addition, it is imperative that any health reform strengthen and sustain the safety net. Truman Medical Centers provides one-third of the uncompensated care in the Kansas City area. We have learned from the Massachusetts experience that there will always be a need for a strong, vibrant safety net hospital system, and it is vital that health care reform allow TMC to continue to meet that need in Kansas City.

Mark Steele, MD
Chief Medical Officer
Truman Medical Centers
Kansas City, Mo

A Trip Worth Taking in Kansas

2009-06-19T13:32:00.004-05:00

By Suzanne Wilke
New federal dollars for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) -
combined with a renewed commitment to children's health care by Kansas
lawmakers - has put Kansas on the road to insuring more kids. Right now,
at least 58,000 children in the Sunflower State are growing up without
health coverage. Two-thirds of those children are eligible but not
enrolled in HealthWave (our state's Medicaid and CHIP program). It's a
trend that's common in states across the country.

But, new tools in the federal CHIP legislation will make the road to
increased enrollment easier to travel for many states. In addition to
these tools, Kansas will implement two additional vehicles in January
that stand to drive HealthWave enrollment: (1) eligibility for
HealthWave will expand from 200% to 250% of poverty; and (2) a new
contractor will begin overseeing eligibility at the state's
clearinghouse. Increased eligibility has proven to produce a "welcome
mat" effect in other states, where the majority of new children that
sign up for health coverage were already eligible before the expansion.
After an expansion in Illinois, 74% of new enrollees were found to be
eligible prior to the expansion and, in Wisconsin, 83% had already been
eligible.

However, we know that enrolling kids is only half the trek. Equally
important is making sure they re-enroll. With a new contractor handling
applications, it may prompt the state to look at ways to simplify the
process for Kansas families. Nationally, we know that nearly half of
children who are eligible but not enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP had been
enrolled, but lost coverage at the time of renewal. Only a small
fraction of children lose coverage due to ineligibility. Most simply
don't receive the paperwork because their family has moved or they are
unable to continue gathering the necessary documentation each year. Most
of the information needed for renewal can be found through other
databases in the state, so simplifying this process for families can go
a long way toward retaining coverage for children.

In Kansas, we're working now on a roadmap that should lead to more kids
getting the health care they need at a price their parents can afford. A
group of stakeholders will be meeting throughout the summer months to
talk about the roadblocks that are specific to our state, and they will
be developing a set of steps Kansas can take to maximize the new
opportunities.

It may be a long and bumpy road, but with a healthier future on the
horizon, it's a trip worth taking.

Suzanne Wilke is the Director of Health Policy for the Kansas Action for Children.

Praise for Small Victories in a Session of Big Disappointments

2009-05-20T15:06:00.002-05:00

By Charron Townsend

When it comes to improving health care access and other goals for children, Missouri’s recent legislative session can be summed up as small victories amid big disappointments. After an election year filled with campaign rhetoric about helping children, it appears that most promises went unfulfilled.

Given the financial climate in the state and country, we do feel fortunate that programs for children and families largely escaped cuts in their budgets. One prime example is our ability to continue the funding that allows families to take uninsured sick children to certain qualified medical facilities and receive treatment under the presumption that they are eligible for state children’s health insurance enrollment.

But health-care expansion has to be at the top of the disappointment list. Particularly troubling was the failure of proposals to expand health-care coverage to 27,000 uninsured children and to insure an additional 35,000 low-income parents. Children are more likely to be enrolled in health-care coverage if their parents are covered. In denying parents coverage, lawmakers have made it more difficult for children to get the preventive care that keeps them well.

Another disappointment was failure again this year of the proposed Quality Rating System for child-care programs. It would help parents assess the quality of care and education their children are getting. Gains were made though as the House approved the legislation for the first time. However, it later was defeated in legislative wrangling over a massive education bill.The House vote for the legislation, however, should encourage children’s advocates to try again next year.

During these tough economic times, it is important to enact policies that help people to hold down jobs and continue to provide for their families. A major victory this year was hard-fought legislative approval to spend $42 million in federal stimulus dollars.

Other successes for children and youth include stronger physical education requirements, a “Foster Care Education Bill of Rights,” a $1.6 million increase in the state’s allowance to foster parents so they can purchase clothing and diapers for the abused and neglected children in their care, a state council to coordinate education from pre-kindergarten through college, a fund to support drop-out prevention efforts in school districts and a Child Witness Protection Act to help children who must testify in judicial proceedings.

The 2009 session particularly was disappointing for children’s health care, but we are confident that Governor Nixon will do what he can to reach out to families with children who are eligible but not yet enrolled in the state’s children’s insurance plan.

Charron Townsend is President of Partnership for Children,a Kansas City-based nonprofit organization dedicated to improving life for children and youth.

The Nursing Shortage Has Not Even Started, But Here We Go Again!

2009-05-15T10:40:00.003-05:00

By Susan Lacey, RN, PhD, FAAN

There is no doubt that the financial crisis has translated into millions of lost jobs, home foreclosures as well as a sense of frustration and uncertainty that is clouding almost everything we do.

The nursing profession has been characterized as ‘recession proof’. That is a good thing for those of us who have chosen this career. Regardless of what is happening in the larger society, health care goods and services will always need to be consumed – babies need to be born and people will continue to get sick and need to access the health care system.

So, what does this mean in terms of the profession and the future? One of the things it means is that for a very short period time, there will ‘appear’ to be less of a nursing shortage, but we must not perceive that during this time, the nursing shortage is over.

Why? Two reasons. First, the demand for nurses has not even started in earnest as the graying of America accelerates. The first of the 77 million Baby Boomers may start to retire next year. This is when the majority of healthcare goods and services is consumed. And secondly, nurses who have stayed in the workforce longer than anticipated will eventually retire and who is going to replace them? More nurses will retire than are entering the workforce. In other words we have not even started feeling the nursing shortage.

We can either rest on the notion that all is well and there is no nursing shortage looming or we can respond with a comprehensive strategy that encompasses these 'blips' on the radar. Legislators need to keep nursing first and foremost in mind when crafting healthcare reform and continuing to support legislation for increasing funds for nursing education.

If nursing does not find a way to create innovative strategies for these times, then unfortunately our fate will be dictated by others outside the profession. Let us all work together for new ways of thinking about nursing and better use of these professionals in a time when, even during a lull, they are most in demand.

Susan Lacey is the Director of the Bi-State Nursing Workforce Innovation Center and the Director of Nursing Workforce and Systems Analysis at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Missouri, an ANCC Magnet hospital. For more information, visit www.nursinginnovation.org.

Should Drug Offenders Get Food Stamps?

2009-05-08T16:11:00.001-05:00

by Lora McDonald, Kansas City Metropolitan Crime Commission

The Kansas City Metropolitan Crime Commission, through the Second Chance Program, has created a metro wide strategy to respond to prisoner reentry, reducing recidivism and increasing public safety, through research, advocacy and funding programs. They have developed the Kansas City Metropolitan Reentry Coalition which responds to issues that impact people returning to community from incarceration. Senate Bill 34 addresses an important reentry issue.

Senate Bill 34, sponsored by Senator Yvonne Wilson of Kansas City, was designed to lift the Food Stamp ban for people with felony drug convictions in Missouri. In 1996, under the Clinton Administration, states were allowed to “opt out” of providing Food Stamps to people who had any drug related felony. Missouri adopted a lifetime ban, whereby no one convicted of a drug related felony can ever get Food Stamps in this state. Kansas adopted this also but smartly reversed their ban in 2005. Missouri is one of 13 states continuing to deny Food Stamps to otherwise eligible people with drug related felonies.

Should drug offenders get Food Stamps? The reality is that it more broadly impacts people than one could imagine. Consider, for example, the woman who has completed probation, regained her sobriety and has been in recovery while working, paying taxes and voting. She has been raising her family successfully for years and now gets laid off under the current economy. She can not get Food Stamps (her children can) and will suffer consequences for a mistake in her distant past. The Bill was unanimously voted out of committee but needs your support to pass!

If you would like to learn more about Senate Bill 34, or the Kansas City Metropolitan Reentry Coalition, contact Lora McDonald at (816)285-8668 or lmcdonald@kc-crime.org .

What is Socialized Medicine?

2009-05-06T11:02:00.001-05:00

By Senator Chris Steineger

Socialized medicine is:

Socialized medicine is where the government collects taxes from everyone, then gives out some sort of health care benefit.

Socialized medicine is where the government owns & operates the payer system that pays the bills.

Socialized medicine is where the government owns & operates the hospitals.

Socialized medicine is where the Doctors, nurses, orderlies and other health workers are all government employees.

Socialized medicine is a system that offers few if any choices if you want to use it. Little to no choice of doctor, hospital, etc.

The Veterans Administration health system is socialized medicine defacto because every American pays taxes to the federal government; because the government owns & controls the payment system; because the government builds & owns the V.A. hospitals; because the Doctors, nurse and other staff are government employees.
The V.A. provides the lowest cost per capita health care in the United States. Administrative costs are extremely low. The V.A. negotiates discounts from pharmaceutical and has the lowest cost prescriptions in the U.S. Marketing costs are non existent and the V.A. does not have lobbyists making campaign contributions to politicians.

Other "socialized systems" in the U.S.A. where we all pay taxes, then share a common benefit: the interstate highway system; air traffic control; food inspection; the national electric grid; U.S. Post Office; U.S. Customs; the U.S. military

Senator Chris Steineger represents the 6th district of Kansas, which includes portions of Kansas City and Edwardsville. Currently in his fourth term, Senator Steineger is the ranking member of the Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee and also sits on: the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations; the Committee on Assessment and Taxation; the Committee on Education; the Joint Committee on Information Technology; and the Joint Committee on Legislative Post Audit.

They Tax Cigarettes Don't They?

2009-04-27T11:11:00.003-05:00

By Babs Albon, MS

Our current healthcare insurance is a mess. With unemployment rising, the number of people without insurance will rise to over 30% of the adult population under 65. As the population ages, and people get sick due to no preventative health care in place, more and more people will die due to lack of care.

I know people personally that do not have healthcare and need it desperately. They do not get the preventative and simple care needed to survive. 80% of the uninsured are working adults, born in the U.S. We are your uncle, aunt, mother, father and we are dying needless deaths. Even people with insurance do not have enough coverage to stay healthy.

We have to have some kind of universal health insurance. We may not be able to take the profit out of healthcare overnight, but we have to start somewhere. As a nation, we must realize that we will have to all contribute to make healthcare affordable for everyone.

We tax cigarettes to not only to discourage people from smoking, but to help pay for the people who are dying from smoking. Here is my idea. Since snack foods, sodas, and candy are a big contributor to poor nutrition and poor health, much like cigarettes, let’s impose larger tax to theses items and use funds to pay for health care system improvements. Would you pay more for candy, soda, and snacks if it meant everyone got healthcare?

Yes it is a higher tax. Yes, you may consider it socialism. But, we have had corporate welfare and socialism in this country for well over 20 years.

This is America, we can do this! Tax the snacks! Wouldn’t you pay $2.00 for a coke if it meant everyone was covered? We each pay a little to help everybody out. Isn’t this what makes our country great – we come together and find a solution to our problems.

Babs Albon lives in Johnson County, Kansas and works part-time as an Employment Specialist at TMC Behavioral Health in Kansas City, Missouri. Babs is a mental health consumer and advocate.

The Difficulties of Health Care Reform

2009-04-21T22:59:00.002-05:00

By Senator Chris Steineger

Health care reform in the U.S. is difficult because we have assembled the most complicated, convoluted, inefficient, un-systemic health care "non-system" of the industrialized nations. The two biggest cost drivers are: the American lifestyle of too much food and not enough exercise, and the payer "system". Changing these two factors are "extremely difficult" and "difficult".

Health care reform in the U.S. is difficult because the elected officials who are to change or reform the non-system seldom get the opportunity to truly learn and understand the vagaries of Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, the Veterans Admin health system, ERISA, federal regulations, state regulations, and more. All Americans pay into these programs via taxes, but only poor, old, kids, & vets receive benefits. No other country has different programs for poor, old, kids, vets. Instead, every other industrialized nation collects taxes from their citizens but then guarantees a minimum benefit for every citizen regardless of age or wealth. Americas segregated health benefit "system" makes us unique and costs substantially more while delivering less.

Health care reform in the U.S. is difficult because there are so many lobbyists defending every station of the status quo. Many organizations, corporations, and individuals make money from the "system" the way it is. Hospitals, Doctors, Dentists, HMOs, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, trial attorneys, etc., all will oppose some aspect of reform. They oppose any reform which might reduce their revenue or their ability to control who gets what.

Senator Chris Steineger represents the 6th district of Kansas, which includes portions of Kansas City and Edwardsville. Currently in his fourth term, Senator Steineger is the ranking member of the Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee and also sits on: the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations; the Committee on Assessment and Taxation; the Committee on Education; the Joint Committee on Information Technology; and the Joint Committee on Legislative Post Audit.

Missouri Budget Leaves Out Coverage for Kids - But There's Still Hope

2009-04-21T11:31:00.003-05:00

By Jeremy LaFaver, Partnership for Children

A few weeks ago I wrote that it appeared the budget being developed in the Missouri Senate was promising. While true in many instances (like the addition of funding for 35,000 low-income parents), the Senate has rejected any changes to the current children’s health insurance program (CHIP).

However, not all hope is lost. Governor Nixon, who was elected with nearly 60% of the vote on a “health care for all” platform, has the opportunity to make certain changes within the administration to bring in as many as 90,000 kids who are currently eligible, but not yet enrolled in the MoHealthnet for Kids (CHIP) program. With 137,000 kids statewide without health insurance (20,000+ from Jackson County alone), it is incumbent upon our Governor to do the right thing and reach out to these families.

But, I have to say, it’s not all up to our Governor. We, as advocates and community members, need to reach out to Governor Nixon and say: What can we do to help? Where do we fit in as part of the solution? The Governor is certainly busy right now with the wrap up of the legislative session, so I encourage everyone, once the session is over and the dust has settled, to reach out to Governor Nixon and his administration with a helping hand. Let’s all try to be a part of the solution and come together as a community of health advocates. Working together, there’s nothing we can’t accomplish.

Jeremy LaFaver is the Policy and Outreach Coordinator for Health Care and Protection Services at Partnership for Children. Partnership for Children is Kansas City’s leading children’s advocacy organization whose mission is to focus the energy of our community and our government on enhancing life for children and youth through research, education, and advocacy.

Mental Health Crisis and Jails

2009-04-17T09:13:00.006-05:00

By Jeffrey Fewell

Witnessing the increasing numbers of mental health patients in our county jails is a huge concern. In any given month at the Wyandotte County Adult Detention Center, we:

-admit 1280 inmates

-process 320 sick calls

-conduct 90 physicals

-conduct 650 mental health assessments

-issue medication to 270 inmates

-issue over 100 psychotropic medications

-care of 2 HIV infected inmates

-care for 4 pregnant females

-care for 3 suicide attempts

During all this activity with court, legal visits, family visits, farm outs and releases, it is extremely difficult to manage and care for the mentally ill or the medically disabled. Jail is not a good place to be, especially if you have a special need. Our jails are designed for short term confinement and to facilitate one’s judicial processes until the criminal laws of the state and federal government. We are unstaffed, underfunded and overextended. I believe this is true for most of the correctional facilities throughout the United States. I do not believe the people of any county government want “state of the art” correctional facilities and programs at the cost of education, healthcare or public roads.

The government’s economic crisis has threatened the mental health facilities within our state. If these facilities are closed, imminently we will see a rise in our jails populations. The two fastest growing populations in our jails are maximum custody and special needs inmates. These two populations, consequently, are the most costly inmates to care for and secure. Funding must be kept to keep our mental health facilities, as well as our correctional facilities, at acceptable levels.

History repeats itself. When you close mental health facilities and cut funding for our correctional facilities, our crime rates will skyrocket. Then we will have even more serious problems when our cities are no longer safe to work and live.

Jeffery Fewell is the Administrator of the Wyandotte County Adult Detention Center in Kansas City, Kansas. Fewell was one of many people who testified last week against closing the Rainbow Mental Health Facility to the Kansas Facilities Closure and Realignment Commission.

Integrating MAST is the Right Choice for Kansas City

2009-04-09T10:14:00.002-05:00

By Jan Marcason

In an effort to ensure the highest quality care, the City Council designated a committee comprised of medical professionals, financial officers of the city, and union representatives to study the city’s ambulance system. The issues considered by the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee were patient care and governance.

We are fortunate that the current EMS system in Kansas City provides excellent patient care. If that were the only consideration, there would be no compelling reason to change the current system.

However, the public utility model that has governed MAST for more than 30 years is no longer the preferred governance structure across the country. There are only a few cities that still use this model. Most cities have either incorporated emergency medical services as a city department, developed a structure under their fire or health department, contract with area hospitals, and some directly contract with private providers. The reasons include eliminating duplicative back-office functions, ensuring seamless coordination, streamlining management, and cost-control.

The recommendation of the committee was that MAST should begin the process of integration as a stand-alone city department. The City Council voted to develop this plan over the next 6-12 months. There are many issues to work out in the plan: legal, financial, and personnel issues.

The city is committed to maintaining its quality MAST personnel. The City Council agreed to allow MAST employees living outside city limits to remain in their current homes. If an employee moves, he or she must move into Kansas City. Consistent with current residency requirements, all new hires must live in Kansas City.

Kansas Citians are fortunate to have excellent quality emergency services. Integrating the EMS as a part of the city’s total emergency response system will reassure our residents that in the case of an emergency we can address a single event or a major catastrophe efficiently and effectively.

Jan Marcason is a Kansas City, Missouri City Councilwoman for Fourth District, In-District.

Senate to the Rescue?

2009-04-07T09:52:00.002-05:00

By Jeremy LaFaver, Partnership for Children

Last week the Missouri Senate appropriations committee took a first glance at the budget bills passed by the House, going through each line and making preliminary decisions on several items. One of the most significant decisions appears to be the inclusion of budget stabilization funding from the federal government, effectively bringing in nearly a billion dollars aimed at fueling Missouri’s economy while funding safety net services needed by thousands of Missouri families who are struggling in the current economic recession.

This first look at the budget in the Senate is very promising. Highlights of the first pass through include funding the Governor’s proposal for increasing Medicaid eligibility up to 50% FPL and restoring more than $1 million for the state Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The Senate hesitated on including the Governor’s proposal for insuring more than 27,000 children through CHIP, but agreed to discuss it further in the coming weeks.

Over the course of the next two weeks, the Senate appropriations committee will be discussing whether to restore many of the cuts made in the House, hopefully coming to agreement in mid April. Right now, it looks like the Senate may come to the rescue for Missouri’s citizens, setting up a potentially contentious fight in conference committee. Advocates need to continue communicating with our lawmakers, helping them understand the importance of funding critical services for our most vulnerable citizens. While there may appear to be a sunny horizon, the budget is still being debated and we can’t afford to celebrate too early.

Jeremy LaFaver is the Policy and Outreach Coordinator for Health Care and Protection Services at the Partnership for Children. Partnership for Children is Kansas City’s leading children’s advocacy organization whose mission is to focus the energy of our community and our government on enhancing life for children and youth through research, education, and advocacy.

State Cuts Harmful and Unnecessary for Missouri Families

2009-03-27T09:00:00.000-05:00

by Amy Blouin

It has been a busy week in Jefferson City, and one that will have a significant impact on Missouri families struggling to overcome these difficult economic times. Unfortunately, however, the impact will be detrimental rather than helpful.

This week, the Missouri House passed a series of budget bills for Fiscal Year 2010, which include severe cuts to state services. Those most significantly impacted include abused children, foster children, and uninsured Missourians, but the cuts will impact all Missourians.
The Missouri Budget Project estimates that as many as 70,000 Missourians will be directly impacted by the cuts. In addition, Missouri might forfeit as much as $200 million in critical federal funds, which could result in a loss of thousands of Missouri jobs.

The cuts are not only harmful for Missouri families, but also unnecessary. As a result of the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Missouri is expected to receive at least $4.3 billion in increased federal funds over the next two years. These funds could more than cover restoration of the proposed cuts.

Federal funds have been provided to states to prevent cuts to critical services when people are most vulnerable, and to maintain and create jobs that will stimulate the economy.

The failure of the Missouri House to fund services in this time of increased need for families is unconscionable. Our legislators have the resources to fund critical state programs, encourage job creation and help our state recover from the economic downturn.

The FY 2010 budget bills now move to the State Senate for consideration. Please contact your State Senators and encourage them to utilize this federal funding for its intended purpose – helping Missourians weather the recession and creating the jobs that will bring our state into more prosperous economic times.

Amy Blouin is the Executive Director of the Missouri Budget Project. The Missouri Budget Project is a statewide nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that analyzes and informs the public about Missouri budgetary and fiscal policy options and provides analysis of policy issues. Please visit www.mobudget.org to learn more.