Federal cuts in home health care funding will cost taxpayers in the long run.

Government officials looking for ways to cut budgets sometimes make decisions that may produce a short-term gain but a long-term loss.

A number of issues now being faced by the Kansas Legislature probably fall into that category, but one decision that already has been made by federal lawmakers almost certainly will have that effect.

Despite a bipartisan outcry from many members of Congress as well as industry groups, the Bush administration apparently is determined to follow through on a 1997 action, taken during the Clinton administration, that will cut Medicare benefits for home health care by 15 percent by Oct. 1 of this year.

The cuts to home care programs already have been devastating. According to the National Association for Home Care, about 3,500 home care agencies (a third of the nation’s total) have gone out of business or dropped out of Medicare since 1997. NAHC also estimates that nearly 1 million fewer Medicare beneficiaries are qualifying for Medicare-reimbursed home care now than in 1997.

Those people either aren’t receiving services or are being placed in nursing homes or other institutions where care is far more costly. In many cases, the cost of that institutional care is being covered by Medicaid, a state responsibility. Are we seeing a connection yet? Kansas’ Medicaid costs are one of several items putting a severe strain on the state’s social services budget. As it too often does, the federal government has shifted responsibilities to the state without providing any funding to carry out those responsibilities.

But the greatest toll taken by this reduction in home health funding is the human one. Who knows how many people who could have remained in their homes with a limited amount of home health assistance are now being forced into institutions? Providing nursing home care for these people not only raises the cost of care but reduces the dignity and independence of the people being served.

To make matters worse, the action that has caused this problem apparently was a mistake. The 1997 action was intended to cut about $16.5 billion in home care benefits in five years, but actually would cut more than $72 billion. Many members of Congress are concerned about the problem and have signed letters urging that the issue be revisited. However, through the Department of Health and Human Services, Bush has taken the position that Congress should not prevent the 15 percent cut from going into effect.

We don’t pretend to understand every facet of the federal budget that will be affected by this decision, but a few effects are obvious. The cut will raise the cost of providing care by pushing more people into nursing homes, it will shift more of the cost of providing that care to state Medicaid programs, and it will take a human toll that most Americans would simply find unacceptable.

The 15 percent cut doesn’t seem to make sense on any level. Congress and the president should take another look at this action before allowing it to take effect on Oct. 1.