Penny Foolish
"Higher costs could be unintended consequence of deep cuts."
Eliminating home care, adult day care and other state services is likely to push recipients into more expensive programs, experts say.
Saturday's Los Angeles Times has an excellent story (click here) that points out the short-sightedness in much of the budget cutting going on in Sacramento. I always find it interesting that the state bureaucracy is always quickest to cut the funds that go to cities and counties while allowing the bureaucracy in Sacramento to survive intact. I doubt many realize that not one state worker has been laid off yet. (click here for story) Yes, there have been furloughs, but so far the state has managed to push all the pain down to local government.
The LA Times article points out:
The governor's budget plan would also shut down the state's poison control service, a $5.9-million program used by 330,000 people per year. Poison control experts say the elimination of a hotline would lead to as many as 164,000 extra emergency room visits. Those visits would cost the healthcare system somewhere in the range of $70 million per year, according to Stuart Heard, executive director of California Poison Control System.
Roughly 15% of the patients who use poison control are on Medi-Cal, meaning the government would end up paying for their emergency room visits. "We believe we save the state more money than we cost them," Heard said.
Another element of Schwarzenegger's plan would end an adult day care program that provides medical and therapeutic services to the frail elderly. The cut is intended to save the state $170 million. But if even 20% of the recipients of the program are forced into nursing homes as a result of the service cut, as healthcare advocates have predicted, any savings to the state would be entirely wiped out.
About 27,000 other low- income seniors rely on a program that provides them with brown-bag lunches. The food is donated by farms and other food producers, and the program is run mostly by 900 volunteers. The state contributes $541,000 for administrative services.But the program could collapse, administration officials acknowledge, if the state withdraws its money, as the governor has proposed. Experts say that could lead to malnutrition of many seniors who rely on the program. And about $13 million -- $26 for every $1 the state puts in -- in food donations and local matching funds would be lost.
Substance abuse treatment for 48,000 nonviolent drug offenders would also end under the governor's proposals, saving the state $108 million. But experts predict that ending treatment would eventually cost much more. UCLA studies of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act programs, which were created by Proposition 36 in 2000, concluded that every dollar the state spends on the program saves $2.50 to $4 that state and local governments would have to spend to lock up prisoners and provide other social services.
The governor also suggested saving more than $400 million by eliminating drug treatment and vocational programs in prisons. Harry Wexler, a researcher who has worked with state corrections officials, said such services help keep offenders out of trouble after they are released. The services cost $12 a day, more than 10 times less than the cost of housing a California prisoner, he said. "If they dismantle it . . . a lot of those people will be back in a pretty short period of time," Wexler said. "And any . . . savings will be lost."
So, you can see that all of these are programs that were instituted because they saved the state money. Unfortunately, the state bureaucracy is more interested in preserving jobs in Sacramento--many of which duplicate local programs or just add an additional layer of bureaucracy on local government. For some reason, these jobs are untouchable while programs which save the state money, and provide real assistance to our citizens, are slashed and burned because they don't preserve the job of a state worker.
Eliminating home care, adult day care and other state services is likely to push recipients into more expensive programs, experts say.
Saturday's Los Angeles Times has an excellent story (click here) that points out the short-sightedness in much of the budget cutting going on in Sacramento. I always find it interesting that the state bureaucracy is always quickest to cut the funds that go to cities and counties while allowing the bureaucracy in Sacramento to survive intact. I doubt many realize that not one state worker has been laid off yet. (click here for story) Yes, there have been furloughs, but so far the state has managed to push all the pain down to local government.
The LA Times article points out:
The governor's budget plan would also shut down the state's poison control service, a $5.9-million program used by 330,000 people per year. Poison control experts say the elimination of a hotline would lead to as many as 164,000 extra emergency room visits. Those visits would cost the healthcare system somewhere in the range of $70 million per year, according to Stuart Heard, executive director of California Poison Control System.
Roughly 15% of the patients who use poison control are on Medi-Cal, meaning the government would end up paying for their emergency room visits. "We believe we save the state more money than we cost them," Heard said.
Another element of Schwarzenegger's plan would end an adult day care program that provides medical and therapeutic services to the frail elderly. The cut is intended to save the state $170 million. But if even 20% of the recipients of the program are forced into nursing homes as a result of the service cut, as healthcare advocates have predicted, any savings to the state would be entirely wiped out.
About 27,000 other low- income seniors rely on a program that provides them with brown-bag lunches. The food is donated by farms and other food producers, and the program is run mostly by 900 volunteers. The state contributes $541,000 for administrative services.But the program could collapse, administration officials acknowledge, if the state withdraws its money, as the governor has proposed. Experts say that could lead to malnutrition of many seniors who rely on the program. And about $13 million -- $26 for every $1 the state puts in -- in food donations and local matching funds would be lost.
Substance abuse treatment for 48,000 nonviolent drug offenders would also end under the governor's proposals, saving the state $108 million. But experts predict that ending treatment would eventually cost much more. UCLA studies of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act programs, which were created by Proposition 36 in 2000, concluded that every dollar the state spends on the program saves $2.50 to $4 that state and local governments would have to spend to lock up prisoners and provide other social services.
The governor also suggested saving more than $400 million by eliminating drug treatment and vocational programs in prisons. Harry Wexler, a researcher who has worked with state corrections officials, said such services help keep offenders out of trouble after they are released. The services cost $12 a day, more than 10 times less than the cost of housing a California prisoner, he said. "If they dismantle it . . . a lot of those people will be back in a pretty short period of time," Wexler said. "And any . . . savings will be lost."
So, you can see that all of these are programs that were instituted because they saved the state money. Unfortunately, the state bureaucracy is more interested in preserving jobs in Sacramento--many of which duplicate local programs or just add an additional layer of bureaucracy on local government. For some reason, these jobs are untouchable while programs which save the state money, and provide real assistance to our citizens, are slashed and burned because they don't preserve the job of a state worker.
posted by City Manager @ 6:41 AM
1 Comments:
At July 20, 2009 1:16 PM ,
Joann Tilton said...
Thanks for sharing the LA Times article. It explains the proposed cuts in easy to understand terms, which makes me wonder, again, "what are they thinking in Sacramento?" Are they reviewing the organizational structure for duplicity or no longer needed programs or agencies? Or, looking at other places to cut that do not impact the public's health and safety? Perhaps this is being done and it's not being reported - why am I doubtful that is not the case.
Post a Comment
<< Home