2004 Senate Bill 1063 (Appropriations: 2005 community health budget)

Legislation watch

Public Act 349 of 2004

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Shirley Johnson (R) on March 3, 2004, to provide the “template” or “place holder” for a Senate Republican version of a Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Department of Community Health budget. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 3, 2004.
- Reported in the Senate on March 25, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on March 30, 2004, to replace the executive proposal for this budget, contained in Senate Bill 1036 , with a budget that expresses policy differences between the Republican-majority in the Senate and Governor Jennifer Granholm on certain spending items and funding sources. See Senate-passed version for major features, and Senate Fiscal Agency analysis for detailed analysis (the “Text and Analysis” tab at the top of this bill’s MichiganVotes.org page is a link to this). The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on March 30, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Deborah Cherry (D) on March 30, 2004, to require that certain money appropriated to boost the pay of nursing home workers must go to the workers directly. The amendment failed in the Senate (17 to 21) on March 30, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Sen. Deborah Cherry (D) on March 30, 2004, to increase spending for various Medicaid services. The amendment failed in the Senate (17 to 21) on March 30, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Sen. Deborah Cherry (D) on March 30, 2004, to add $5 million to the extra money paid to hospitals with a high proportion of Medicaid patients, and revise the proposed new formula by which the money is distributed to hospitals. Under the current formula, many hospitals with a large number of Medicaid patients do not get this money because their relative proportion of Medicaid patients is less than certain metro-Detroit area hospitals. The new formula would reduce payments to Detroit-area hospitals by approximately $4.3 million. The amendment failed in the Senate (17 to 21) on March 30, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
Passed in the Senate (24 to 14) on March 30, 2004, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 Department of Community Health budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is Senate Bill 1036 .) This appropriates $9.637 billion in adjusted gross spending (including restricted fund and federal dollars), compared to $9.417 million, which was the FY 2003-2004 amount enrolled in 2003. Of this, $2.974 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2003-2004 amount of $2.561 million. Medicaid spending rises $229.5 million over the previous year. The Senate version authorizes approximately $95 million less gross spending than the governor recommended, but $500 million more general fund spending, mainly because it does not include some $400 million in new tobacco tax and estate tax revenue proposed by the governor. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on March 30, 2004.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on March 30, 2004.
  - Reported in the House on June 8, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on June 9, 2004, to replace the Senate version of this budget with a House version which expresses policy differences between the bodies on certain spending items. See House-passed version for details. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on June 9, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Triette Reeves (D) on June 9, 2004, to add $248,200 for the Morris Hood diabetes center in Detroit. The amendment failed in the House (52 to 49) on June 9, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Rep. Paula Zelenko (D) on June 9, 2004, to maintain employee compensation levels mandated by an appropriation that has been granted in the past to enhance the pay of nursing home workers. The amendment prohibits any increase or decrease in the amount of the mandated “wage pass-through” compensation level. The amendment failed in the House (45 to 58) on June 9, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
Passed in the House (61 to 43) on June 9, 2004, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 Department of Community Health budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is Senate Bill 1036 .) This appropriates $9.664 billion in adjusted gross spending (including restricted fund and federal dollars), compared to $9.417 million, which was the FY 2003-2004 amount enrolled in 2003. Of this, $2.465 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2003-2004 amount of $2.561 million. Medicaid spending rises $229.5 million over the previous year. The House version authorizes approximately $68 million less gross spending than the governor recommended, and $11 million less general fund spending. It appropriates $419 million in new tobacco tax revenue (see House Bill 5632) and tobacco revenue previously earmarked for the “rainy day” fund. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 10, 2004.
Failed in the Senate (0 to 37) on June 15, 2004, to concur with a House-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 29, 2004.
Passed in the House (91 to 15) on September 9, 2004, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 Department of Community Health budget. This appropriates $1.013 billion in adjusted gross spending (including state restricted fund and federal dollars), compared to $9.417 million, which was the FY 2003-2004 amount enrolled in 2003. Of this, $2.558 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2003-2004 amount of $2.561 million. The budget incorporates revenue from a 75-cent per pack increase in the state cigarette tax. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 30, 2004.
Passed in the Senate (29 to 4) on September 8, 2004, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 Department of Community Health budget. This appropriates $1.013 billion in adjusted gross spending (including state restricted fund and federal dollars), compared to $9.417 million, which was the FY 2003-2004 amount enrolled in 2003. Of this, $2.558 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2003-2004 amount of $2.561 million. The budget incorporates revenue from a 75-cent per pack increase in the state cigarette tax. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed with line-item veto by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 30, 2004.
Received in the Senate on October 5, 2004.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Rep. Bieda's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on June 11, 2004]
Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on Senate Bill 1063 (H-1] because it balances the state's budget on the backs of patients. In addition, this bill also strips our commitment to the well-being and the quality of life of Michigan's citizens by cutting the Governor's recommended prevention programs. When the state ranks the third worst among states for its rate of obesity and has been among the ten heaviest states for the past 14 years and there are still more than 16,000 tobacco-related deaths in Michigan each year, Michigan needs to invest in preventative health programs to ensure a healthier population in the future. We cannot afford to continue to ignore the growing, and expensive problem chronic diseases. This bill is a short-sighted fix in a tough budget year and ignores legislative responsibility for prioritizing the quality of life of Michigan's citizens and providing a safety net for those that have found themselves in tough times during this economic downturn. I believe that Governor Granholm did a good job in putting forth a balanced budget that preserved these priorities, but Senate Bill 1063 is far from providing for the basic health care needs of Michigan citizens. Because of these deficiencies, I voted no on Senate Bill 1063."

Reply

Line

2) "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on June 11, 2004]
Reps. Phillips, Dennis, Accavitti, Zelenko, Byrum, Hopgood, Vagnozzi, Brown and Law, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on Senate Bill 1063(H-1) because it balances the state's budget on the backs of patients. This bill creates winners and losers in the health care arena in Michigan. It slashes health care for more than 40,000 individuals, including 11,000 young adults ages 18-21 who rely on Medicaid for the medical treatment they need. At the same time, this bill holds harmless pharmacies and emergency room physicians from the tough economic conditions of the state's budget. This bill wrongly prioritizes reimbursement rates above and beyond those of other health care providers over the basic health care needs of more than 40,000 Michigan citizens.

This bill also strips our commitment to the well-being and the quality of life of Michigan's citizens by cutting the Governor's recommended prevention programs. When Michigan ranks the third worst among states for its rate of obesity and has been among the ten heaviest states for the past 14 years and there are still more than 16,000 tobacco-related deaths in Michigan each year, Michigan needs to invest in preventative health programs to ensure a healthier population in the future. Every dollar the state spends in prevention will save the state two or more dollars in the future. We cannot afford to continue to ignore the growing, and expensive problem chronic diseases.

Senate Bill 1063 is a short-sighted 'fix' in a tough budget year and ignores legislative responsibility for prioritizing the quality of life of Michigan's citizens and providing a safety net for those that have found themselves in tough times during this economic downturn. The Governor was able to put forward a balanced budget that preserved these priorities, but Senate Bill 1063 is far from providing for the basic health care needs of Michigan citizens."

Reply

Line

3) Sen. Hardiman's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on March 31, 2004]
Senator Hardiman asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Hardiman's statement is as follows:

I rise in opposition to this amendment. I appreciate the work of all of our hospitals in Michigan. I appreciate the wonderful job they do in helping to save lives, but I don't believe that we know that there is more money available, and if there is, that's wonderful because I believe that they can all use it.

I appreciate the work of the chairman and of the committee on this very important budget. This bill more fairly distributes the $45 million of Michigan's Medicaid disproportionate shared fund. The intent of the disproportionate shared fund is to bring necessary funding relief to Michigan hospitals providing high amounts of Medicaid services. Spectrum Health System in Grand Rapids receives zero dollars from the 2003 disproportionate share distribution, despite having the second highest number of Medicaid, medical surgical days in this state, which serves as a leading indicator of Medicaid patient treatment volume. In Southeast Michigan in 2003, Southeast Michigan received 94.5 percent of the total disproportionate share distribution, while accounting for 54.7 percent of the Medical surgical days. In 2003, West and Southwest Michigan received 3.3 percent of the disproportionate share distribution, while accounting for 18.4 percent of the medical surgical days.

So I believe that this is a more fair distribution of the dollars we do have available. I would love to see more dollars available for all of the hospitals, and if that happens, then I think that is good for Michigan.

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation