Sometimes, what looks like more is actually less.
Gov. Bill Graves' proposed budget, for example, gives the state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services an additional $20.9 million, which, after it's matched with federal funds, should increase welfare spending by about $98 million.
Just relocated to a new office in Strong Hall, Janet Murguia, executive vice chancellor for university relations at Kansas University, is ready to tackle her first legislative session, championing education issues in a tight budget year.
Bert Nash CEO David Johnson is worried about Gov. Graves' proposed cut that would limit a person's eligibility for General Assistance and MediKan to no more than 24 months. Johnson said such a cut would adversely affect about 80 people in Douglas County.
That looks like more, but it's not.
To keep pace with the increasing numbers of people eligible for assistance, SRS needed an additional $163.5 million. Instead, it got $98 million in new money, $65.5 million in cuts.
Most of the new money is in the budget because if someone is poor enough or frail enough for help, the federal government says that help must be funded. It's an entitlement.
In Kansas, SRS and the Department on Aging caseloads are up about 12 percent.
"We have no choice, we have to pay these bills," said Duane Goossen, director of the governor's budget office. "We have to account for these caseloads."
The cuts, Goossen said, could have been worse.
Rejected cuts
Graves did not adopt many of the cuts SRS proposed in October. Among those rejected:
Eliminating vision, audiology and dental services for adults.
No longer buying wheelchairs, ventilators or oxygen for disabled adults.
Not allowing low-income, disabled adults to keep more than $475 a month from their Social Security checks.
Increase the fees charged for collecting and processing child support payments.
Raising the $10-a-month premiums paid by most families taking part in HealthWave, the state's health insurance program for the working poor.
"The governor is trying to keep as many kids eligible for health insurance and medical services as possible," Goossen said. "We've been very successful in reaching previously uninsured. It's an effort he wants to see maintained."
Instead of tapping working parents mothers earning near-minimum wage, mostly for higher premiums, the governor, Goossen said, proposed taking $1 million from the state's tobacco-settlement fund.
Proposed cuts
But Graves went along "with much difficulty," Goossen said with several other cuts. These include:
Charging parents of disabled children a 6-percent fee for the services that help them keep their son or daughter at home rather than in one of the state hospitals.
Eliminating state-funded funerals for the indigent.
Reducing payments to workers hired to help disabled adults live in their own homes or apartments. The average worker's wages would drop about one dollar an hour.
Closing units at both Osawatomie and Parsons state hospitals.
Cutting payments to pharmacies and increasing the amount to be collected from the recipients.
Reducing the state's block grants for community mental health centers by 30 percent. Support for centers for the developmentally disabled would be cut by 25 percent.
Limiting a person's eligibility for General Assistance and MediKan to no more than 24 months. Neither of these programs involves federal money.
If adopted, SRS predicts about 500 disabled, low-income adults would be cut off. Unable to work, it's unclear how they would survive.
David Johnson, chief executive officer at the Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center in Lawrence, said he's been notified that 79 people in Douglas County have been on General Assistance and MediKan for 24 months.
"Our records show that 79 percent of that group have received services at Bert Nash," he said.
Currently, Johnson said, gets about $130,000 a year from MediKan. "I'm trying to find out how much of that we'd lose to the 24-month cutoff," he said.
The 30-percent reduction in block-grant funding would cost Bert Nash about $75,000, all of which is set aside for patients who aren't poor enough for assistance but who can't pay their bills.
"It's disturbing that while we're under a mandate to provide services regardless of an individual's ability to pay the state sees fit to cut our funding," Johnson said. "But what's even more disturbing is that 'serving all' is only a state mandate. There's nothing to stop the Legislature from saying this is a local obligation."
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.