Home -- Legislative Newsletter

April 20, 2010

Welcome to my newsletter, “Capitol News!” I would like to wish everyone a wonderful summer. We are now in Session after the “first adjournment” and the work really begins. Much of time this Session has been spent on issues that have had very little significance to the concerns of our State. Some “feel good” issues, some “personal” issues by some of the Representatives but not much real meat has been passed into law. I have been involved with some constituent issues that you might be interested in knowing about. One such issue was something that seems like common sense but no one took the time or made the effort to correct was the reality that a “Thirty Day Tag” for licensure of a large truck or semi-tractor could only be used to haul a load for the first 48 hours of ownership. Research could not produce any reason why this was in statute. House Bill 2510 was placed in HB 2547 in conference and was signed into law on 4/6/2010 by governor Parkinson. Now a person or organization purchasing a new semi-tractor or large truck can use it to haul during the entire thirty-day period. The second was HB 2323 which modified the background check law for persons delivering services to the elderly or disabled by adding felony theft into the list of prohibited crimes for employment. Beginning on 4/28/2010 the “wrap-up Session” or “Omnibus” Session begins. This year there is a large amount of work to be done on both the budget and the procuring of revenue to fund the budget. So the fun begins!

I would like to share some information with you about a bill that I authored this year. It was introduced in both the House and Senate. The House bill is HB 2673 and the Senate is SB 546. The current situation is in the Senate it has become Senate substitute for HB 2320, it retains the same number in the House (HB 2673). There has been a tremendous amount of misinformation circulated concerning this bill so I have included some of the information and also the documentation for my statements. If you would like more specific information please do not hesitate to call or email me, but as always give me your name, address and a phone number so I can contact you.

Dear Editor,

This letter is in response to a letter to the Editor the week of March 22, 2010 that mentioned me with several statements that are incorrect.  I won’t give credibility to those statements by listing and answering them one by one.   If you do the homework you will find out that I as the author of HB 2673 or Senate Substitute for HB 2320 have nothing to gain except better care for the citizens of Kansas who reside in nursing facilities.

There are many statements that are made but one that seems to be a rallying cry is “the care of the needy has always been a general cost to society.”  The great sin of Mankind is “we have always done it that way” when change is suggested.  Machiavelli put it like this: “It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it.”

I continue to hear “it is bad public policy” as an excuse to not institute or support a program that brings Federal dollars into Kansas.

There are 36 of the 50 states currently increasing their Medicaid federal dollars by this approach.  The program in Kansas would take $30,000,000.00 and draw down $56,000,000.00 Federal dollars, that I would mention are dollars collected from the citizens of Kansas, which would return to benefit Kansans.  Of the 345 nursing facilities in Kansas 319 are benefited.

The assessment would benefit all of the 26,000 residents of nursing homes.  The argument is that it would increase cost to the private pay.  That argument is hollow.  The homes that serve more than 15% Medicaid residents would receive more than the assessment and some (those with high Medicaid percentages) would benefit even more.  Bringing more dollars to their community is hard to correlate as “bad public policy.”  The opponents of the assessment need to explain why the program “is bad public policy.”  To use $30 million to receive an additional $56 million that can then be used to assist those who are needy seems like a good program.  The argument that it will tax the private pay patient doesn’t work either as the Department on Aging has indicated they will disperse funds before any assessment is requested.

Kansas has had a provider tax/assessment in place since 2004, a similar program was created this year for certain HMOs to benefit a children’s hospital in Missouri that serves Kansas children.  Both of these programs were supported by the Association that claims “it is bad public policy” to create such a program for nursing homes.  How can it be good for one and not for the others?  The argument will be “there were no losers” in the other programs.  The HMOs didn’t receive any benefit from the assessment and their tax was increased.  Is the decision that the HMOs agreed to be taxed the reason that that program is “good policy?”   There are “losers” in all programs of this nature and other states have found ways to mitigate those losses and Kansans are just as creative.   The Federal government will not allow a program that benefits everyone.  The comment that there were no losers is incorrect.

The losers without the provider assessment are the citizens of Kansas that reside in nursing homes, both the private pay and the Medicaid recipient.  If you wish the figures on any individual facility please call KDOA at 1-800-432-3535  and ask for information about the nursing home assessment.

Thanks

Bob Bethell
Alden, KS 67512