Candidate
Questions & Responses
Jay Pond
Green Party Candidate
for U.S. House of Representatives
5th 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?
As a Green
Party candidate I fully support the Green Party position of enacting
into law a single payer, universal healthcare program that would
include prescription drugs in its benefit package to all recipients.
We believe that health care is a right for all people and that
it is best administered through a program supported by our government.
In the interim, however, until a single payer universal healthcare program
is enacted, I would definitely support and/or author a technical amendment
that would make prescription drug coverage more accessible to persons with
disabilities.
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?
It
is short-sighted at best and inhumane at worst not to provide the
opportunity for all people, regardless of ability level, to become
contributing members of society. Although I view this problem as
an area legitimately seen as an issue for each state to tackle,
if we can detect a systemic negligence on the part of those 38
states where waiting lists abound, a federal solution is in order.
That solution may be in the form of direct or indirect incentives,
direct financial aid, or the withholding of financial aid in the
absence of action. But a definite federal response is appropriate
to insure that all people seeking assistance from vocational rehabilitation
programs are accommodated.
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?
The
IDEA should be reauthorized without the current administration’s
attempts to weaken accountability. This legislation works. It does
what Congress intended it to do. We should not attempt to ‘fix’ things
that are not broken! I oppose the proposed alterations to the bill,
and will support its reauthorization in its original form.
Please
outline your thoughts on the proposal to "block grant" Medicaid
funding to the states, instead of the currently used formula.
Again I reiterate
the Green Party position, which I endorse whole-heartedly, that
every person has a fundamental right to adequate health care. Under
a universal, single payer health care system that is either federally
or state operated the issue of “block grants” may
still come up, but in a markedly different context.
That said, in the short-term
I oppose the current administration’s
move to fund the Medicaid program through block grants to each state
rather than having it operate, as it currently does, as an individual
entitlement with an open-ended funding commitment from the federal
government, albeit shared by the state government.
My major objection centers on the question of who is in a better
position to absorb potential, unknown financial risk. Medicaid enrollment
grows during periods of economic weakness, the exact times when state
revenue collections diminish. Given their balanced budget requirements,
states are in a much weaker position than the federal government
to meet the increased demand for services during times of economic
stress. The block grant concept would put pressure on the state to
limit, rather that expand, enrollment during economic downturns because
their federal money is fixed. Thus, it only makes sense to keep the
major financial component in the hands of the stronger partner: the
federal government. States, with their narrower tax bases and less
heterogeneous economies, are subject to greater volatility in revenue
collections, thus making a reduction in services a likely outcome.
A matching formula, like the current model, encourages expansion
of the program. When the state only pays 25% - 50% of the costs and
the federal government picks up the remainder, it is easier to expand
eligibility because the cost is shared. Under block grants, expansion
would be 100% funded by the states, so there is decreased incentive
to do so. Conversely, under block grants a retraction of eligibility
would provide benefit to the state budget since the block grant would
remain constant. Under the current formula, a retraction of services
is not as attractive as it also means a reduction in the federal
subsidy.
Finally, the current proposal would lock in the discrepancies in
the current state funding levels. Thus, those states with poor services
would have no incentive to improve their Medicaid services.
Do
you support the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment
Act of 2003?
Yes,
I fully support the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment
Act of 2003.
How is Minnesota
doing in response to the 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead decision?
It
is hard to make progress toward fully implementing the Olmstead decision when
the Governor attempts to totally defund the effort at compliance. The
legislature’s response to cut the previous
financial allotment by 30% is at best a set-back that will slow the
pace of insuring that all those who wish to be in a community rather
than an institutional setting are given that opportunity.
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"?
Assuming
that Medicare has the same institutional bias that Medicaid
has, an administrative change needs to occur that funds the choice
of the recipient. One way to do this is to have the funding follow
the individual: this individual’s condition entitles
her/him to a certain maximum of financial support. The individual
then decides where that support is spent—either in an approved
home-based situation, or in an institutional 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 fully
support MiCASSA and the “Money Follows the Person
Act.” Government programs that provide support for people with
disabilities must be crafted in a way that maximizes the control
that individuals have over their conditions of existence. These acts
provide the administrative infrastructure that makes that happen.
By doing away with the institutional bias of Medicaid and putting
home and community-based services on an equal footing with institutional
care, MiCASSA and the “Money Follows the Person Act” is
a giant step toward giving the disabled a major voice in their living
situation.
