Candidate
Questions & Responses
James L.
Oberstar
DFL Candidate
for U.S. House of Representatives
8th Congressional District
How
will the new federal prescription drug benefit being implemented
in 2006 help or hurt the 9 million non-elderly disabled Americans
receiving Medicare? Would you support (or author) a technical amendment
that would make prescription drug coverage more accessible for
persons with disabilities-- persons who have dual eligibility under
Medicare and Medicaid?
I
opposed the Medicare prescription drug legislation for many reasons,
including the fact that the new law fails to provide a meaningful
drug benefit for millions of Americans, including disabled Medicare
beneficiaries. Yes, I would support amending the Medicare law to
improve drug benefits for the disabled and for all low-income Americans
who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.
Currently
in 38 states people with physical, sensory and cognitive disabilities,
who seek assistance from vocational rehabilitation programs are
being placed on a waiting list because the programs do not have
the funds to serve them. In view fact that studies -- including
studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office -- have shown
on the average for every dollar put into rehabilitation programs,
the federal government will receive 9 dollars in tax revenue over
the persons working life, would you support increased funding and
support for vocational rehabilitation programs so all applicants
can be served and begin returning needed tax revenue to the federal
government?
Yes,
I support increased funding for vocational rehabilitation programs.
Throughout my service in Congress, I have been a strong supporter
of these programs, because I believe that the federal government
should expand opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Investments
in vocational rehabilitation are cost-effective, prepare the disabled
for future employment, and help individuals with disabilities participate
more fully in society.
The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is commonly
referred to as the civil rights act for children with disabilities
because it guarantees access to a free and appropriate public education.
The act is currently being considered for reauthorization and both
the House and Senate bills significantly weaken key components
of the current law that ensure accountability. These include such
things as opening the door to the development of three year individual
education plans (IEP's), rather than one year; eliminating the
requirement for short term objectives to be included in IEP's;
changing the way parents are notified of their rights; making it
easier for schools to suspend or expel students with disabilities
(even if the behavior is related to the student's disability);
and watering down due process protections. If this bill is not
reauthorized during the current session of Congress, will you support
reauthorizing an IDEA bill next session that will not strip current
rights from children with disabilities and their families?
I
understand the comments from teachers who find that the extensive
paperwork involved in educating students with disabilities detracts
from their responsibility to educate. However, I have concerns
that the paperwork reduction pilot program in the IDEA legislation
currently under consideration has no restrictions on what paperwork
can be waived. Under this program as currently drafted, a state could
propose waiving Individual Education Programs or due process notices
as a way of reducing paperwork. Such broad discretion will only harm
efforts to improve services for children with disabilities. For this
reason, I opposed the bill when it passed the House of Representatives
in April 2003. I would likely support the reauthorization of an IDEA
bill if these provisions were to be improved in a future bill.
Please
outline your thoughts on the proposal to "block grant" Medicaid
funding to the states, instead of the currently used formula.
I
strongly oppose all efforts to make Medicaid a block grant program.
It is imperative for the federal government to maintain its commitment
to the federal programs that serve the most vulnerable members
of our society. While I have some confidence that the State of
Minnesota would continue to meet the health care needs of disabled
residents in a Medicaid block-grant arrangement, I am concerned that
other states would fail to ensure that disabled Americans would receive
access to necessary health care services.
Do
you support the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment
Act of 2003?
Yes,
I support this legislation (H.R. 953), in the strong belief that
we should not tolerate discrimination against patients in need
of mental health care services. It is essential that we extend
mental health parity for all Americans to have the same treatment,
cost-sharing, lifetime and annual limits as those applicable to physical
health care services.
How
is Minnesota doing in response to the 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead
decision?
The 1999
Supreme Court decision and subsequent federal rulings direct every
state to transfer those with disabilities from institutions to
less confining community settings, where appropriate. I understand
the Minnesota State Legislature approved legislation in 2003 to
create an alternative care program that provides home and community-based
services. I believe the federal government should work with the
states to provide the necessary resources to implement the Olmstead
decision.
How
can the Medicare system be altered to provide incentives for
funding community-based, versus institutional care or services
to those who are "home-bound"?
Under
current law, Medicare provides home health benefits for beneficiaries
requiring acute medical care, but it does not provide home health
benefits for the disabled and frail elderly needing long-term care
services. I support comprehensive long-term care reform to end the
bias in favor of institutional care over home and community health
care services to ensure that all Americans have the option to choose
the most appropriate setting.
Given
that recent government surveys show some 6,690 or 18.7% of Minnesotans
living in nursing homes express a preference to live in the community.
What is your position on MiCASSA (S.971 and H.R.2032) and Money
Follows the Person Act (S.1394 and H.R.1811)? Please elaborate
on the pros and cons to the legislation and the rationale
behind your position.
I support
legislation to improve Medicaid to ensure that disabled Americans receive the
assistance they need in daily activities. Additionally, the disabled should have
the ability to choose the appropriate setting for the services they require.
In most instances, home and community settings are preferable to institutional
care, because it provides enhanced dignity and freedom for the individual
and is more cost-effective. Our federal health care policies should
reflect this preference for home and community-based care, and I
support legislation to achieve these important goals.
