It’s unfortunate that Gov. Scott Walker spent the weekend campaigning for the presidency, this time posing as a “regular Joe” in South Carolina.
Because on Friday he missed the Joint Finance Committee (JFC) hearing at Alverno College in Milwaukee of his proposed two-year budget, which, among other things, would radically change the way Wisconsinites with disabilities and the elderly would receive their care.
Currently, the state administers Medicaid programs that try to keep people with disabilities and frail seniors in their homes for as long as they wish to live at home, and allow them to make decisions affecting their care and well-being. Family Care oversees Aging and Disability Resource Centers (ADRC) and contracts with regional managed care organizations (MCO) to provide long-term support and services. In addition, the IRIS program gives more than 11,000 consumers the ability to make their own decisions about their care.
Walker’s budget, however, shreds these programs. He seeks to expand Family Care to the entire state, but would cut its funding by $14.25 million and require MCOs to provide services statewide and be regulated by his appointed insurance commissioner. He also wants to fold primary and medical services into the long-term care program and to privatize some or all of the ADRC functions and totally eliminate the IRIS program.
Dozens of frail and disabled Wisconsinites and their allies spoke out against Walker’s plans on Friday, saying that they open the door to big, for-profit insurance companies taking over these services and also reduce the ability of program participants to make decisions about their care and caregivers. Walker’s changes could also force program participants to change doctors and find new caregivers.
Barbara Beckert, Milwaukee office director of Disability Rights Wisconsin, said given the past support of three governors and legislative leaders—both Republican and Democrat—she was shocked that Walker “effectively dismantled” the current system. She asked JFC members to strip the provisions from the budget. Democratic JFC members have already made that request. Beckert said the current system wasn’t broken and didn’t need to be scrapped.
“We want to roll up our sleeves and work with you to improve the current system, which is a model nationally,” Beckert said. “We have a lot of great ideas that we’d like to share with you that have the potential to save money and improve quality.”
|
|
Special Olympian Cynthia Bentley said IRIS’s services are critical to her success.
“Gov. Walker said his bottom line was to get people with disabilities working,” Bailey said. “I’m working and paying taxes while my friends also want to be working and paying taxes.”
Milwaukee County Department of Family Care Director Maria Ledger said she was concerned that for-profit companies would take over services that have saved taxpayers money.
“This new HMO, with no requirement to submit a competitive proposal, will replace the local, homegrown organizations that each of you have approved to serve some of your most vulnerable constituents,” Ledger said. “Your local MCOs have a proven track record of success.”
But a number of caregivers spoke out in support of Walker’s changes—primarily those employed by Molina Healthcare, which has its eye on the business opportunities opened up by Walker’s proposal.
Joan James, a community connector for Molina Healthcare, said she supported Walker’s proposal to integrate medical and long-term supports and services, which Molina provides.
“At Molina, we are different, delivering a high-touch, whole person model of care,” James said.
TAGS: Scott Walker, JFC, state budget, Family Care, IRIS, Barbara Beckert, privatization, Maria Ledger, Joan James
Meta Keywords: Scott Walker, JFC, state budget, Family Care, IRIS, Barbara Beckert, privatization, Maria Ledger, Joan James
Meta Description: The Joint Finance Committee heard testimony on Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed budget. Many disability advocates and their caregivers sharply criticized Scott Walker’s changes to Family Care and IRIS, saying they would pave the way for privatization of services and reduce program participants’ independence.
