Candidate
Questions & Responses
U.S.
Rep. Jim Ramstad
R Candidate
for U.S. House of Representatives
3rd 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?
All groups that are covered under
Medicare will benefit from the new Medicare prescription drug benefit
program. On average, Medicare beneficiaries without prior coverage
will save more than 50% on what they are currently paying for their
prescription drugs. Low income beneficiaries will pay a maximum
of $5 to as little as $1 per prescription, depending on income
level.
While the new drug benefit is not perfect, I believe the prescription
drug benefit is a step in the right direction. Continued Congressional
oversight and improvement are required to ensure that this program
provides maximum benefits to all Medicare beneficiaries.
Follow up – Would you support a technical amendment that would
make the prescription drug coverage more accessible for persons with
disabilities – persons who have dual eligibility under Medicare
and Medicaid? Yes, the prescription drug benefit should be more accessible
for persons with disabilities who are dual eligible for 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?
As
co-chair of the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus, I am committed
to promoting the independence, productivity, integration and inclusion
of all Americans with disabilities. I strongly believe that any
person with disabilities who seeks employment should be able to
find a job.
At the beginning of September, the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus
held a briefing on employment options for people with disabilities.
This briefing highlighted the importance of vocational rehabilitation
in helping people with disabilities maximize their capabilities and
gain employment. I will continue to ensure that all Members of Congress
understand the importance of vocational rehabilitation and the need
for adequate funding.
I strongly support many
other initiatives that help people with disabilities gain employment.
That’s why I helped author the
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, which became
law in 1999 and which helps people with disabilities work and gain
greater independence.
This session, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 4278, the Improving Access
to Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act. This
important program is crucial to helping people with disabilities
access assistive technologies and gain employment.
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? 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?
Education is the cornerstone to independent living and a high quality
of life for all Americans. Unfortunately, students with disabilities
graduate from high school and college at a much lower rate than
those without disabilities. It is critically important that we
continue to improve our educational programs for students with
disabilities, and I am a strong supporter of initiatives that strive
to meet this goal.
As a sponsor of legislation which mandates annual increases of $2.2
billion in each of the next five years to reach full federal funding
for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), I am
absolutely committed to fully funding special education and protecting
the rights of children with disabilities.
Please
outline your thoughts on the proposal to "block grant" Medicaid
funding to the states, instead of the currently used formula.
I
am strongly opposed to block grants for Medicaid. As co-chair of
the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus, I have worked to educate other
Members of Congress on the importance of Medicaid to people with
disabilities. In July, the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus held
a briefing on the concerns that have been raised about the proposed
Medicaid block grants. I will continue to work to ensure that all
Members understand the importance of Medicaid for people with disabilities
and the need for adequate funding.
Do
you support the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment
Act of 2003?
I
co-authored this important bill with Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI),
and I will continue to work hard to pass this legislation, which
is critical to 54 million Americans suffering from mental illness.
How
is Minnesota doing in response to the 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead
decision?
Minnesota
must do more to ensure full implementation of the Supreme Court’s
Olmstead decision. With Medicaid accounting for an ever-growing
percentage of state spending, the need to provide alternatives
to institutional care is critical for states. Minnesota has expanded
use of Medicaid waivers, such as the Consumer Directed Community
Supports waiver, to help Minnesotans with disabilities stay in
their communities.
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"?
I
am pleased that Medicare has long provided home health services
to beneficiaries who are confined to the home. Additionally, the
new Medicare law includes a demonstration project in which beneficiaries
enrolled in Medicare Part B with certain chronic conditions would
be deemed to be homebound in order to receive home health services
under Medicare. This important project will help expand the home
health service options available to Medicare beneficiaries.
I believe it is essential
for people to live in their own homes and as an integrated member
of their community whenever possible. That’s why I will continue
working to expand community-based services and community living
choices for people with disabilities and other Medicare beneficiaries.
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 want
to reiterate my support for community-based care. No person should be forced
to enter an institution to receive services that can be effectively delivered
in their own home or community. That’s why I support the goals of H.R. 2032.
Further, I believe that
Medicaid funding should follow the individual, and not be tied
to an institution. That’s why I am a cosponsor
and strong supporter of H.R. 1811.
