Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 20, 2007, to appropriate $115.2 million for additional Fiscal Year 2006-2007 spending on a wide variety of state activities, including prisoner health care, Medicaid, Welfare, State Police. The amounts include $48 million in federal money, $26.6 million from the state general fund, and $33 million in "restricted" fund and other money. It shifts funding sources for various items, and also authorizes future spending of $23.8 million for an optometry building at Ferris State University, and $42 million to demolish existing buildings and build a new one at Wayne State University

The vote was 83 in favor, 26 opposed and 1 not voting

(House Roll Call 192 at House Journal 57)

Click here to view bill details.

Rep. Meekhof, 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 can not approve this additional spending that is over and above the departments budget for 07. Department heads must be held accountable for their poor job performance, and voting for additional money to cover this poor performance is not in the best interests of the tax payers of Michigan."

Senator George's statement is as follows: I rise because I want to point out that this measure before us, House Bill No.4493, is illustrative of what is at the heart of our state budget difficulties. It illustrates what is undermining the competitiveness of our businesses and demonstrates the very nature of our state's economic problems. This budget bill typifies the challenge that is threatening the livelihood of our people and our state's economic survival. What does this bill do? The bill responds to cost overruns within the Medicaid program by papering them over with taxpayer dollars, rather than fixing the source of the problem. The bill appropriates $143 million new General Fund dollars to cover unanticipated expenses, which are not primarily due to new caseloads, but instead reflect cost overruns within the existing program--overruns with the existing caseload. By approving this bill, we continue the trend where we have allowed the Medicaid portion of the General Fund budget to grow 40 percent over the last four years. Whereas, other priorities such as higher ed and revenue sharing have shrunk 10 to 20 percent over the same period of time. Moreover, when I ask citizens in my district what they think the state's budget priorities should be, they tell me education; that education is the ticket to Michigan's future, and for years our budget reflected that. The budgets of highered, community colleges, and K-12 funding, combined, form the total education piece of our budget, and until the current year, this was the largest single budget priority. This biggest piece of state spending has always reflected our priority--education. But in the current year budget, that has changed for the first time. For the first time in our state's history, the total education budget has been eclipsed by the total health care piece of our budget. If you add up the amount spent on Medicaid, the amount spent on state employee's health care, and the amount spent within the education budget itself, you will see that health care spending now exceeds the amount spent on education. Despite most of us sharing the goal that education be our top spending priority, it has, in fact, become second to paying for health services. Now, my friends, we do have an obligation to provide care for the poor and the disabled, and no one would dispute that. But I do not agree that the road to Michigan's future is paved by Medicaid. Medicaid should not be our top spending priority. It has failed the Price of Government test. It is not the key to Michigan's economic recovery. As a physician, one might think that I would be pleased with more spending on health services, but I am not pleased. More Medicaid spending that is not caseload-driven is a sign of failure. It is a sign of a program that has failed in its mission to maintain the health of the poor and disabled. Three years ago, I first suggested to the Department of Community Health that they investigate benefit designs that would encourage recipients to be active participants in maintaining their health. It didn't happen, and instead, we budgeted more dollars for Medicaid. Two years ago, I pursued boilerplate language calling on the department to develop incentives for healthy behavior for Medicaid recipients. It didn't happen, so once again, we budgeted more dollars for Medicaid. Last year, we passed Senate Bill No.1255, calling on the department to reform Medicaid, but the department opposed the bill, nothing happened, and we budgeted more dollars for Medicaid. This year, while we face a fiscal crisis, the department is spending its time and resources seeking federal approval for the Governor's Michigan First Program--a program which does not fix Medicaid, but instead, a plan to expand it to new enrollees. Earlier this year, several of us had an opportunity to meet with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, SecretaryLevitt, who was visiting us here in Michigan. I asked the Secretary how difficult it would be to obtain a federal waiver to enact changes in Medicaid design which would encourage recipients to be partners in their care. And his reply was that it was no longer necessary to obtain a waiver to enact those changes. Federal legislation enacted last year gives departments the power to make benefit design changes now, and many states have done it already. No special permission is needed. The process has become simpler, and yet, it hasn't happened here. Earlier I said this budget bill typifies the challenge the Michigan economy as a whole faces. And by that I mean to point out that just as our budget priorities are being twisted by runaway health care costs, so are the budgets of our local schools, our local governments, small businesses, and our large manufacturers. And what has their response been? Businesses that self-insure are designing benefit packages that reward their employees who take active measures to maintain their health. School districts are asking us to change the law to give them more flexibility in shopping for health benefits. Here in the Senate, we are going to be asked to complete a health screening as part of our benefit redesign. Large manufacturers are renegotiating health care benefits with their unions. Unions are telling their members and retirees to prepare for change. You can't pick up a newspaper in Michigan without seeing an article about restructuring health benefits in a way to make them more effective and more affordable. So in the same way that our businesses and unions are redesigning health benefits, Medicaid benefits need to be restructured. They've needed to be restructured, but it hasn't happened. We just keep feeding Medicaid more money. The structural problem in Michigan's budget is not a taxation deficit. The problem is the structure of Medicaid benefits which have not achieved their intended result of making Michigan healthier and which are no longer affordable. Mr.President, given the absence of meaningful Medicaid reform, I am going to vote "no" on this budget, and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Senator Basham's statement is as follows: This is the bill that actually robs Peter to pay Paul. It robs $70 million from the revolving petroleum fund. We talk about health care. One of the previous speakers, the doctor, was talking about health care. I think certainly you can talk about cleaning leaking underground storage tanks as being a health issue in the state of Michigan, when, in fact, we are one of the worst states in the country to have leaking underground storage tanks not being cleaned up. As a matter of fact, we are cleaning up so few leaking underground storage tanks that we are losing federal money as a result of it. So we actually should be putting more money in the revolving petroleum fund. We should be putting, more money in that barrel--no pun intended--in that fund actually to clean up more leaking underground storage tanks, not taking more money out of them. And if you talk about a health care crisis in this state, certainly, the more rural areas in this state will be affected quicker than the urban areas because they use city water, like in southeastern Michigan. But if you have a well, it won't take too long to realize that you have a problem if you got gas stations or abandoned gas stations or abandoned tanks from a number of factories. Some of my colleagues might not want to listen to this, but I think it is important. I think when we rob Peter to pay Paul, I just want to know who this Paul is because, certainly, he is getting all the money, and the money is not going to the revolving petroleum fund that we should be adequately funding, And if not this year, then we should absolutely guarantee that that money goes back in next year. I would ask--you know, this mentality of robbing Peter to pay Paul in taking money out of funds like this is the wrong thing to do.

Senator Scott's statement is as follows: I rise to comment on two issues as it relates to this supplemental. First, I am happy to know that we were able to reach an agreement on the Morris Hood Diabetes Outreach program, a program that provides critical diabetes outreach services for children all across this state. Because of the $25,000 included in this bill and with a commitment from the department to fund the remaining balance, the program will be fully restored at $100,000. It is unfortunate, however, that we have to spend so much time on such an important program that costs the state so little, with 60 percent of these funds going out-state. Children from Marquette to Alpena to Traverse City to Port Huron to Detroit are able to be tested, treated, and screened for this increasingly-diagnosed disease in our young children. Secondly, I want to state my disappointment that we were not able to maintain the executive house recommendation to include a $100 authorization allowing Wayne County Community College to begin planning for a new instructional facility and renovations of its existing buildings. It is important to note that Wayne County Community College had never had a capital outlay appropriations in its 40-year history. The state has continued to put them on hold the better part of three years. It is my hope that as we continue our work on this '08 budget that this project will be given top priority.

Senator Cassis' statement is as follows: My comments take a different approach. The supplemental before us is an increase in funding; it's overspending almost $74 million. We all have said that reforms are needed in this great state, but when do we start? Like a diet, we are very similar to a diet; it's easy to put off until tomorrow starting that diet. Let's eat the cake today; we will worry about starting the diet tomorrow. Or while I do want to reform and make savings to programs--certain programs--there are other ones I simply don't want to touch. So today my vote is to begin the reforms and to contain overspending.