Building a stronger human service system in Massachusetts

Comments

1. kgilnack says

   January 25, 2011 at 3:56 pm

   As many of you are aware, in addition to volunteering with Young Democrats, I am a paid associate at the Providers’ Council.  Anything cross-posted from our website reflects our organization’s views; however any other comments or posts are my thoughts alone.

   <

   p>I appreciate any support you can help our sector – we really need it after being treated like a fiscal punching bag in recent budgets and 9c cuts (on top of a long history of underfunded contracts).

   <

   p>And please feel free to share any questions you might have.

   <

   p>Thanks,
   Kevin

   • judy-meredith says

     January 27, 2011 at 7:47 pm

     whether or not you are adding a message along these lines

     <

     p>”And by the way Senator/Representative, we support some of the taxes that have been filed by Rep Khan and Rep Kaufman and we hope you understand the need for new revenues to restore some of the program cuts in the Governor’s budget.”  

2. judy-meredith says

   January 27, 2011 at 1:25 pm

   as well among education advocates, affordable housing advocates, environmental advocates, workforce development advocates etc etc etc, all of whom are “cramming” the press boxes at the State house complaining about the proposed cuts in “their” programs in the Governor’s proposed budget according to the SHNS.

   <

   p>

   Interest groups flooded reporters’ inboxes immediately after the budget came out, decrying cuts to favored programs.

   <

   p>I agree with Rep Kay Khan whose honest fact based solution for these cuts got a lot more coverage,

   <

   p>

   Gov. Deval Patrick and legislative leaders have sworn off new taxes in the fiscal year that begins on July 1, saying there is no appetite among lawmakers or Massachusetts residents to absorb more increases.

   “I think that’s what people want to hear,” Khan said. “I think there’s a disconnect between wanting all of the services, wanting to get money back to our cities and towns for local aid and education — and we have to pay for it.”  

   <

   p>And there is a growing consensus among informed savvy Legislators and organizations like ONE Mass that the time has come to have an adult discussion among ourselves and a full and fair discussion in the State House about progressive tax reform. It’s either that or more regressive cuts.

   <

   p>Here’s coverage of Rep Jay Kaufman having a adult conversation in his own district about taxes. Last time I looked he was still alive.

   <

   p>

   Rep Jay Kaufman is only one of 20 or so elected legislators who are talking openly (gasp) in their districts (more gasps) about this opportunity to pass tax reform to lessen the threatened cuts.

   Among his priorities, Kaufman, the House chairman of the Legislature’s Committee on Revenue, said he would push for a “Main Street Fairness Act” to impose the state’s sales tax to online purchases, an expansion of the property tax circuit breaker, and new requirements for tax credit legislation.

   Sales tax

   According to Kaufman, the state loses $500 million in sales tax revenue annually from purchases made online. Bay Staters who buy something online or out-of-state for use in Massachusetts are supposed to voluntarily pay the 6.25 percent sales tax when they pay their income tax.

   “Probably seven, maybe 10 people do pay,” he said.

   The Main Street Fairness Act would make paying the state sales tax mandatory.

   “Twenty-four states have already passed this law. I hope to make Massachusetts the 25th,” he said.

   Circuit breaker

   Expanding the property tax circuit breaker would actually cut revenues, but Kaufman said it is only fair to assist low-income seniors and others.

   “Those in the lowest 20 percent of income – making $15,000 for a family of four – pay 10 percent of that income in taxes,” he said. As incomes rise, the percent paid in taxes steadily decreases.

   Tax credits

   Kaufman said bills that propose cuts in revenue resulting from new tax credits should have to state what public benefit would result, including the number of new jobs that would be created.  Such bills should include a “claw back” provision so if the benefits or jobs do not occur, the state would be paid the lost taxes. All new tax credit laws should have a specific date the tax credit would end, he said.

   Other proposals

   Another revenue proposal would increase the income tax rate balanced by an increase in the personal exemption rate. If this were to be done, Kaufman said, a specific percentage should be returned to towns as local aid to offset the property tax. To receive this additional aid, however, Kaufman said, cities and towns must be required to address their health care costs.

   Another proposal would increase the alcohol and gas excise taxes. The gas tax was last increased in 1991, he said.

   Since tax-exempt entities consume public services such as police and fire protection, a bill has been filed allowing municipalities to decide if these entities should pay some level of taxes or provide the community with direct services. Kaufman used the example of a university offering scholarships to local students or opening its gym for local residents to use. Local nonprofits such as food pantries would not be affected, he said.

   Another proposal would increase the tax on dividends, interest and capital gains, he said.

   <

   p>So what do you say my brothers and sister in the advocacy universe.

   <

   p>Ready to tell your Legislator you want her/him to get in there and stand up for any of these proposals to lessen the threatened cuts?

   <

   p>Or is it back to “Don’t cut me, cut the program behind the tree!” You can always add “I won’t support any new taxes till they clean up the a) probation dept b) the court system, c) the welfare dept and d) county government and you want me to be specific f) fire my neighbors brother in law who has a no show job in the highway dept. I don’t any of those services anyway.  

3. justice4all says

   January 27, 2011 at 2:51 pm

   Let’s definitely use tax dollars to support multimillion dollar service providers for the state.  

   <

   p>We should help improve their bottom lines (and increase those well into the 6-figure salaries) by taking more of the cost of insurance benefits off of their balance sheet and onto the taxpayers.  

   <

   p>Let’s make sure that in addition to paying them for contracted services for a fee, we should also provide the very same benefits we were paying our unionized state healthworkers before we privitized the system and laid those people off.

   <

   p> And we should definitely give them a “hand-off” no bid process, because there’s no corruption there! Don’t even look at some of those audits conducted by the State Auditor over the years.

   <

   p>And…loan repayment.  Many private companies provide tuition support, but that would interfere with the growth of the service providers bottom line…so let’s get the state to pay.  

   <

   p>Do I live in an alternate universe?  Can someone tell me why we privitized in the first place?  Oh yeah – it was supposed to be better, CHEAPER, faster etc.  This is starting to look like the shell-game we thought it was.    

   • kgilnack says

     January 27, 2011 at 3:50 pm

     The 40-year-old deinstitutionalization movement came as a result of the horrendous conditions of state hospitals, schools and other facilities used to warehouse individuals with disabilities, troubled youth, and other vulnerable populations.

     <

     p>This movement was led with the support and input of professionals in the field, as well as the courts, who all recognized that community-based settings increase the independence of those being served and reduce barriers for a more inclusive society.

     <

     p>From the Omstead decision:

     “Specifically, we confront the question whether the proscription of discrimination may require placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions. The answer, we hold, is a qualified yes.”

     “The Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DDABRA), a 1975 measure, stated in aspirational terms that ‘[t]he treatment, services, and habilitation for a person with developmental disabilities . . . should be provided in the setting that is least restrictive of the person’s personal liberty.’“

     <

     p>This movement has also helped ensure that more people are served.  A recent report by The Boston Foundation found that the cost per bed of a DDS institution is $183k/yr, the cost of that bed in a community setting is $55-150k/yr. http://providers.org/papers/ut…

     <

     p>I’m happy to have a debate about the merits and shortcomings of community-based services – and have noticed you seem to look for one in most of the posts and comments you make, but the point of this post is the legislation Beacon Hill can take up this year to make our community-based system stronger.

     <

     p>Why wouldn’t caregivers at community-based providers who are contracted to fulfill the Commonwealth’s promise of services to vulnerable people be any less deserving of the educational opportunities afforded to state workers at state facilities?

     <

     p>If the Commonwealth is serious about being a partner in helping providers deliver quality services despite what they’ve already recognized as underfunded contracts, allowing a state procurement officer to purchase from a social enterprise without an RFP process for items less than $25k in value is a great way to help nonprofits diversify revenue and decrease reliance on state funding.  

     <

     p>If we want to excel in innovation and don’t mind giving away millions in tax breaks to corporations, why not let the state incentive social enterprises in the largely state-funded nonprofit human service sector on low dollar items?

     <

     p>Community-based care providers generally are more efficient, cost-effective, and deliver the same if not higher quality services than state facilities.  But that doesn’t mean they can keep being treated like a fiscal punching bag or villain for requesting adequate funding and policies that support a strong workforce.

     <

     p>Sadly, thanks to rising demand and budget and 9c cuts, more than half are currently operating at a deficit: http://providers.org/content/n…  

     • justice4all says

       January 27, 2011 at 4:55 pm

       I was around 40 years ago.  Forty years ago, the Commonwealth was sued by the families of the state developmental centers due to the conditions there. My family happened to be one of them.  At the same time, the privitization deal was a bill of goods that was sold to the Commonwealth as a “better, cheaper” model.  It moved state services away from unionized state employees, decently compensated jobs with decent benefits – to the providers, who take big salaries for the administrators and pay their direct staff a pittance.  These contracts were put out for bid….and now you (and the guys you work for) want to come back for another bite of the apple?  It seems to be a little disingenuous.  

       <

       p>This…cracked me up:

       <

       p>

       Community-based care providers generally are more efficient, cost-effective, and deliver the same if not higher quality services than state facilities.  

       <

       p>Really?  Where’s the empirical data on that?  And if you do get it from the Commonwealth – let us know.  We’d love to submit it to a rigorous review.  Especially if we have to start adding in the insurance and tuition costs.

       <

       p>And so….if we’re going to subsidize these providers further – by providing access to state healthcare, tuition benefits and the like…. how is this new model any cheaper?  Why are we shutting down state ops (group homes and state developmental centers) in favor of this model?  Smells like union-busting to me.

     • justice4all says

       January 27, 2011 at 6:19 pm

       or two.

       <

       p>The issue I have is there is this presumption of altruism with the providers, when they’re here to make a buck, just like everyone else.  They’ve hustled the Commonwwealth for years, with their promises of “cheaper, better” and now the chickens are coming home to roost.  They can’t do it cheaper or better, so now they want the Commonwealth to subsidize them.  

       <

       p>So…let’s look at this:

       <

       p>

       Why wouldn’t caregivers at community-based providers who are contracted to fulfill the Commonwealth’s promise of services to vulnerable people be any less deserving of the educational opportunities afforded to state workers at state facilities?

       <

       p>This my friend – is a slippery slope.  Deserving is one thing…entitled is another.  You start this nonsense with private (key word) providers, you’re going to have all providers of services for the Commonwealth lining up for tuition benefits for their employees.  Really – who’s to say where that one ends?  Why shouldn’t a snow plowing provider get auto mechanic school support for his employees?  Personally – I think state benefits should be for state employees.  The state privatized for a reason….let’s not create some sort-kinda-but not really new state system here.   No “new normal.”  You wanted privatized – you’ve gotten it.  Now live with in the contract.  

       <

       p>And oversight.  There’s precious little of this….yet, I don’t hear any of the providers asking for more support for the DPPC or any oversight body.  We need more, not less…so how about instead of a no-bid system, the providers contribute to their shares of the costs of an independent oversight body?  

       <

       p>

       • bmgtruth says

         January 28, 2011 at 9:06 pm

         I don’t agree with everyone you post but you’re right on about these provider trade associations.

     • lynpb says

       January 27, 2011 at 6:36 pm

       There is an alternative universe here on BMG that thinks community providers are the enemy and that we are all fat cats. We know that is not true. Please keep posting useful information.