Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 House Bill 4436 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 Department of Community Health budget ) [by hootontootin on October 3, 2009]It seems to me that everytime there's a vote to take spending away from an appropriation,it's always the helpless individual that suffers the consequences,with out even realizing that it happens to them!!
Reply
Senator Kahn’s fourteenth statement is as follows:
With great reluctance, I rise to oppose this amendment. The amendment is not well written. It says, “(i) The department shall comply with and reimburse a prescription containing a doctor’s dispense as written order for all behavioral health patient prescriptions.” That would include high blood pressure pills, heart pills, diabetes medications, and on and on.
As part of the discussion that we have had on this entire subject today, there is a message and that is to get it right and get some protections in. There isn’t a message that we want to back away from everything we have ever done and every other part of the dispense as written versus prior authorization P&T committee actions.
So this amendment, I understand why it is here, but it is poorly written or unfortunately written—is a nicer way to say it. I would look forward to working with Senator Brater to give some of the protections she would like as we go through the process of policy bills and bills in Appropriations.
Senator Cherry’s eighth statement is as follows:
I hope that the good chairman of the subcommittee would reconsider his opposition to this amendment. The words “behavioral health” are an accepted term of art which refers to medication for brain disorders. It’s pretty clear that what we’re talking about is specifically the issue of psychotropic drugs. I believe that these are all verbal assurances that have been given to us through subcommittee meetings and from department discussions. It seems to me it makes sense to put them in writing in boilerplate in the bill so that we’re very clear about this policy.
I hope, I hope that the chairperson of this committee would reconsider his opposition to this amendment and place this language into the bill. As we’ve heard from members, there’s experience regarding this issue from a wide variety of perspectives within the membership of this body. I think it’s only fair to have some language to reassure us that what we are doing does not jeopardize the mental health of any citizen of this state. I ask that the chair reconsider his opposition and all of us vote in favor of this amendment.
Senator Kahn’s fifteenth statement is as follows:
In concluding remarks before we vote here, I’d like to thank Senator Cherry for her passion and for the things that we could work on together and advocate for together; Senator Pappageorge, the majority vice chair, for his work; and all the committee members: Senator Barcia, Senator Switalski, Senator George, and Senator Stamas.
This budget, as proposed, as Senator Cherry points out, has weaknesses. Those weaknesses are a reflection of the weaknesses in our economy. They are not weaknesses in caring or wanting, as Senator Cherry so well points out.
But there are some good things in this budget. Let’s close with some of the positives. There’s restoration of the CMH multicultural line item, which funds folks in southeast Michigan in particular, but actually all across the state, who are in need. Some small clinics have been restored. Early childhood collaborative secondary prevention and nurse family partnerships were restored. A priority in this budget was staked out for children—for children. We found in the adult home-help community that the folks who work there are just dramatically under-supported and that’s helped too. We improve the institutional memory, the ongoing retention of employees and, therefore, the quality of care that is delivered by these folks. We even found a way to move towards a new idea for Healthy Kids dental, adding it to Sterling Heights, Macomb County, and Highland Park in Wayne County—both communities with children in need.
As we move on, hopefully, to pass this budget and then to the conference committee, you can defend the notion that this budget with its cuts defended children. I ask for its passage.
Reply
Senator Gleason’s second statement is as follows:
I believe we made a lot of tough decisions today which we didn’t necessarily have to make. I think we are about to do that again right now. People are saying that we must cut, but do we really have to? Now there has been an option which has been presented to us a few weeks ago saying that maybe we don’t have to make all of these cuts; that maybe we do have a funding stream which we haven’t yet had the courage enough to address.
Pretty much most of today, we have put our citizens at greater risk, and in many cases, harm’s way by cutting these budgets. But why don’t we take the responsible step and put our sick, ailing, and invalid citizens ahead of certain tax credits? Why don’t we look at an approach about funding some of these ailments instead of always cutting? Why do we cut things which are vital to our families?
About an hour and a half ago, it was said, well, this is what we signed up for. I didn’t sign up to cut any sick persons’ benefits. That’s not what I signed up for, but we’ve been doing that pretty much most of today. So I think it’s high time we take a serious look when we’re giving special treatments to special interests over sick people.
Let’s take a responsible look at tax credits. I’m one who says let’s put them all on the table, those which may be favorable to the Democrats and those which may be favorable to the Republicans. But let’s quit putting special interests above sick Michiganians. We’ve done that for too long. The constant remarks in regard to the amendments today trying to stand up and afford some sense of relief for our sick constituents in everyone’s district in all parts of the state should be met with an equal, maybe a higher, responsibility—look at tax credits. Why give special treatment, special breaks, and funding opportunities to special interests over sick and dying Michiganians?
We can do better than this. There’s not a single person in this room who would stand by if they had a sick child or a dying parent to say that we can’t find a purpose in setting aside some tax credits for funding the sick and the ailing. So let’s look at this closer. We can do better than this and we should.
Reply
View Full Conversation
