• Third week brings little news
• Budget Update
• Insurance scoring bill introduced
• Medicaid cuts have devastating impact
• Committee rejects Governors' sales tax proposal

• Veterans services offices to close
• KNI, Parsons to remain open
• Kansas Bioscience Authority reports achievements

Third week brings little news

Kansas celebrated its 149^th birthday this week.  Hundreds of local elementary students joined Governor Mark Parkinson at the Kansas State Historical Society for the celebration.  As we reflect on the history of our state, I am reminded of all the things that make Kansas the best place to live, work, and raise a family.  I hope we will protect all of those priorities as we work our way through this budget crisis.

At the Capitol, we are now a quarter of the way through the 2010 legislative session.  After three weeks, we have yet to consider any legislation on the House floor. 

Budget Update

The House Appropriations Committee continued to hear briefings from state agencies this week regarding individual agency budgets.  Unfortunately, the committee has yet to work a budget bill.  Legislators and constituents alike are growing increasingly frustrated with the slow pace.  The committee met six times throughout the interim to get a running start on the budget crisis.  Given the extended working period, it seems reasonable to expect some type of concrete proposal 20 days into the 90-day session.  If the majority leadership plans to make additional cuts to the FY 2010 budget, they have a responsibility to begin specifically identifying what they feel can go to the chopping block. 

Before we can begin work on FY 2011, we must first pass an FY 2010 rescission bill.  This bill is necessary to officially enact cuts made by Governor Parkinson during the interim.  The rescission bill ensures that Kansas meets its constitutional requirement to end the fiscal year with a positive ending balance.  We have yet to do any work on this, but since the Senate passed its rescission bill on Wednesday, the House will hopefully follow suit and begin their work next week.

Insurance Scoring Bill Introduced

It will come as no surprise to the thousands of Kansans who have been laid off that it is very hard to make ends meet and that sometimes bills are not paid as promptly as they used to be.  It is also not surprising for their credit to suffer during this difficult time.  What will surprise those Kansans is to learn that the premium for their car or house insurance may go up because of that lower credit rating.

Property and casualty insurers base their premiums on a multitude of factors.  Past claims, age, driving record all play a part in setting the rate.  Another of the factors considered is the applicant's credit score.  The algorithms used to determine a given applicants risk is proprietary information that is not available to your representative to examine.  Therefore, it is uncertain just how heavily those credit scores influence the premium.  What is certain is that the extent of the layoffs has been injurious to consumers and their credit score.  Through no fault of their own, they may experience a considerable increase in their insurance premium as they purchase or renew a policy.

This is why I have introduced HB 2563 in the House to address this problem.  My proposal would allow consumers to freeze their past good score when extraordinary life circumstances cause that score to diminish.  Circumstances like the death of a spouse, a job loss, or being a victim of identity theft should not be followed by an insurance company classifying that consumer as a higher risk.

I look forward to working with the insurance industry and legislative leaders to pass this common sense bill to inject fairness and guarantee consumers rights in the purchase or renewal of their insurance.

Medicaid cuts have devastating impact

Medicaid providers fall under the umbrella of SRS, Aging, and Health Policy Authority.  These agencies and providers, who are essential to protecting those who are in dire need of medical care, have taken huge cuts to their budgets.  Without adequate funding, thousands of Kansans are left without services that in some cases literally keep them alive.

There have been hearings in multiple committees for the last three weeks regarding the impact of the recently imposed 10% Medicaid cut.  Kansas has cut more from Medicaid than almost any other state. 

Because the state receives 50-90% in matching funds from the federal government for this program, the total loss in revenue for health care providers who serve Medicaid patients, is three times greater than the savings to the state.  Cuts of this magnitude force providers to cut staff, salaries, and critical health services for our most vulnerable citizens.  If funding is not restored in FY 2011, the impact will be twice as damaging; with a $130 million cut to providers in exchange for $70 million in savings to the state. 

Kansas Health Policy Authority processes Medicaid claims.  Their operating budget has been reduced by 15% in the current fiscal year.  KHPA's call center has been closed, which received 250,000 calls last year from patients.  Customer service is an integral part of both state government and health care. 

The call center closure means that if a Kansan has trouble with a claim at the pharmacy, he can no longer call someone at KHPA to receive immediate assistance.  The pharmacist is forced to send that person home without his medicine and try to resolve the problem via an electronic help form.  No matter how sick that person is they go without their medicine until the issue gets resolved.  This administrative backlog has the potential to be dangerous to the health of seniors and children who depend on their medications.

Although KHPA has been able to maintain its current Medicaid caseload, claims cannot be processed because there is literally no one to do it.  In fact, the growth in the backlog of applications is expected to reach 33,000 by June, resulting in delayed or foregone medical care for Kansans and more revenue losses for providers.

Committee rejects Governor's sales tax proposal

After hearing testimony in support of Governor Parkinson's proposed sales tax increase, opponents got their say on Tuesday.  Overall, opponents argue that a sales tax increase would have a negative impact on small businesses in the state and decrease economic activity.  Discussion also focused on maintaining competitiveness with our border states, especially Missouri, noting that some business owners may consider moving their business out of the state if the sales tax increased. 

Some suggested that the problem was with excessive spending and that deeper cuts are the solution to the budget crisis.  Others emphasized that an increase in sales tax would be regressive, harming those on the lowest end of the income scale the most because they have the least disposable income to spend, especially on consumable goods like groceries.

The committee reported the bill to the full House unfavorably on Wednesday.  I believe the move was both premature and irresponsible.  Given the inactivity of the House Appropriations Committee, it makes no sense to consider revenue streams until we know how much money we need or how it will be spent. 

I am not ready to endorse or reject any revenue proposal just yet.  I believe that a balanced approach that combines some cuts and considers some income proposals will be debated. 

I will consider both sides with a singular focus on what is best for our district and state.  However, it is important to point out that Governor Parkinson's budget proposal does not increase state spending.  If his revenue package passes, it will only maintain current funding levels.  After five rounds of cuts, those funding levels have been reduced by over $1 billion from the previous fiscal year. 

I am interested in your thoughtful feedback on these discussions.  Should we maintain state services or should we seriously consider a revenue package of some kind?  Please contact me and tell me what you think. 

Veterans services offices to close

Our veterans are heroes who leave their homes and risk their lives to defend our way of life.  Often times their experience at war profoundly affects their emotional and physical health.  These men and women deserve our deepest gratitude, respect, and access to the first-rate care they have earned for their service and sacrifice. 

At a time when soldiers are returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan with major injuries and severe post traumatic stress, Kansas is being forced to close down offices that provide assistance to veterans needing benefits and assistance.  Last week in the Veterans, Military and Homeland Security Committee, the Kansas Commission on Veterans Affairs (KCVA) gave an update on how budget cuts have affected our state's veterans.

Since the 2010 state budget bill passed, funding for the KCVA service centers has been cut to less than the initial funding it was allotted when the program started 3 years ago.  Even before these cuts, Kansas was dead last among all states in the number of veteran service offices and Veteran Service Representatives (VSR) per veteran (1 VSR to 11,000 veterans).  Of 15 service offices in Kansas, three offices have already been closed and seven more are at risk of closure.

Cutting services to veterans will save money in this fiscal year, but there is a heavy price tag for its long-term implications.  Veteran service representatives (whose salaries are funded by the KCVA and have been frozen because of cuts) help veterans navigate the complex VA system in order to receive compensation.  Those veterans who do not receive the federal benefits they deserve are then forced to rely on state-funded assistance. In Kansas, only 13% of our vets are receiving the benefits they are owed.  Clearly, there is a connection between the money our state provides for veterans and their inability to obtain the federal benefits. 

The closing of these service centers is yet another example of how the state budget negatively affects every Kansas community.  Government spending has been cut to the bone in this recession, and deeper cuts must be prevented in the next fiscal year.

KNI, Parsons to remain open

When the legislature adjured in May I began my service on the Governors' Commission on Closure and Realignment of State Facilities.  This commission was charged with examining our state hospitals, mental health facilities, and the schools for the deaf and blind.  We met for two days a month through November and forwarded our recommendations to Governor Parkinson.

Perhaps the most controversial recommendation was to close Kansas Neurological Institute (KNI) in Topeka and to downsize Parsons State Hospital.  I opposed that recommendation and the Governor announced that he also opposes the recommendations concerning the KNI and Parsons.

The commission recommended closing KNI, while transferring a majority of KNI's residents and some Parsons residents into community programs.  In his letter, Governor Parkinson said, in part, "While we can successfully transition some of the residents at KNI and Parsons into the community, we cannot transition them all.  It will take time to reduce the populations at both facilities to a level that makes consolidation possible."

The Governor has issued an executive order to begin a phased reduction of KNI and Parsons, with the possibility that one of the institutions will be closed in three or four years.  To begin decreasing the number of new people admitted to the facilities, a more stringent admission standard has been enacted.  SRS will also begin profiling residents who can successfully transition into community services.  Consolidation of the facilities is contingent upon successfully moving and keeping individuals in community service programs. 

I believe that the Governors' recommendation was the best solution for KNI and Parsons residents, their family members, caretakers, and our community.  The services provided by KNI and Parsons are among the very best our state has to offer our most profoundly disabled Kansans.

Kansas Bioscience Authority reports achievements

The Kansas Bioscience Authority visited the Capitol this week to announce $4.4 million in new investments to advance the state's national leadership in animal health and human health.

Some of the new investments include:

• $1.8 million to the University of Kansas, over five years, to support research to develop innovative drugs to treat and prevent cancers;
• TVAX Biomedical of Lenexa was awarded $600,000 to support an FDA approved study for a patented brain cancer treatment that uses a patient's own immune cells to fight the disease;
• Lawrence-based ReLive for Kids will receive $50,000 as a partial match to a $106,000 Small Business Innovation Research grant from the National Institutes of Health to further develop a cognitive-behavioral headache management system for teens;
• Kansas State University was approved for $500,000 to develop pioneering vaccines to combat a serious viral disease threatening swine and swine production globally.

The KBA is funded through a mechanism based on the growth of state income-tax withholdings from employees of bioscience-related companies. State taxes that exceed the base-year measurement of such taxes accrue to the authority for investment in additional bioscience growth. This mechanism makes it unnecessary to raise taxes or reallocate amounts from other state budgets. Revenues that accrue belong exclusively to the Kansas Bioscience Authority and are not part of the state treasury.

KBA also issued its 2009 progress report and delivered it to the Legislature.  In the report, KBA highlighted that a national site selection magazine ranked Kansas in the Top 10 list of states for biotechnology.  In addition, Kansas was officially selected as the home of the $650 million National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, which will have an estimated $3.65 billion economic impact as it becomes the world's preeminent research center to protect the food supply and agriculture economy.

These investments have brought a lot to Kansas.  Through December 2009, the realized outcomes of KBA investments have had a cumulative impact of 1,170 new jobs, $112 million in capital investment, $46.6 million in research funding, $30.8 million in equity investments in bioscience companies, and an estimated $76.7 million in new wages.