Candidate
Questions & Responses
Deborah
Watts
DFL 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?
I
believe that the new drug benefit scheduled for implementation
in 2006 will be revised or rewritten before it takes effect, primarily
due to the enormous cost of the proposed program. I believe that
the temporary prescription drug benefit cards should be made permanent;
they offer a competitive, flexible, and effective mechanism for
controlling price, and they empower patients to make their own
decisions about healthcare. I would work to make this program permanent,
extending its benefits into the future and to more Americans. Concerns
are typically raised about the complexity of the discount card
and the limited eligibility for needy seniors to receive subsidies.
Both of these concerns can be addressed before making the discount
card permanent.
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?
I believe
that our healthcare system is generally too focused on treating
symptoms instead of preventing them, or, to put it another way,
we combat sickness instead of fostering health. I agree that by
paying for rehabilitative treatments we can generate increased
productivity and tax revenue; it’s also important
to note that by paying for this sort of preventative or rehabilitative
care we save a tremendous amount of money down the line by averting
serious complications and deteriorations.
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
will not only work to reauthorize IDEA with its protections for
students and parents intact, but I am also committed to securing
full-funding for this program. This is an important issue for
me because my opponent, though a vocal advocate for fully funding
IDEA, has voted for all the Bush budgets and their cuts to this
program. I will not only advocate for full funding and protections,
I will not support a budget that does not adequately fund IDEA
or other important educational programs. Short-term goals for
IEPs are particularly important to me rather than three year IEPs
that allow students to fall through the cracks. In addition, schools
should be required to formulate IEPs with the input of teachers,
counselors, students, and parents after parents are notified
of their rights and options. Suspension or expulsion of students
with disabilities should be subject to administrative review and
ensure that the student’s best
interests are considered first.
Please
outline your thoughts on the proposal to "block grant" Medicaid
funding to the states, instead of the currently used formula.
I
oppose efforts to block grant Medicaid funding, and I consider
such efforts just backdoor attempts to weaken and circumvent protections
for patients and consumers. The Republican Party has grown exceedingly
adept at weakening accountability and relaxing regulations for
the benefit of insurance companies and medical industries. I believe
that the costs of additional federal maintenance are well worth
the payoff of better benefits and stronger patient advocacy.
Do
you support the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment
Act of 2003?
I
support the Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act, and
I believe that mental health parity is an important, bipartisan
project that has been stalled for too long in the Congress. I would
oppose efforts to include a cost-exemption for insurance companies
or to limit the Act’s applicability to a narrow list
of disorders; I perceive both of these as attempts to protect insurance
corporations and the medical industry from their obligations to help
American patients and consumers.
How
is Minnesota doing in response to the 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead
decision?
I
believe that Minnesota’s alternative
plan for Olmstead compliance, the long-term care reform program,
has been successful in many ways, but must be constantly updated
to maintain its level of service. One of the most important problems
that the program must surmount in coming years is the retiring of
the baby boom generation, flooding the program with new long-term
care residents, most of whom will want to live in a community.
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
support expanding the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan to
all Americans, and I believe that a FEHBP-style reform for Medicare
would enable the system to accommodate the demand for community-based
care. The FEHBP has been in operation for over thirty years,
and has constantly evolved to compensate for new demands in healthcare:
without legislative oversight, the Plan has grown to include
catastrophic cost coverage, dental benefits, prescription drug
benefits, and even ailment specific-plans for disorders such as
diabetes. By relying on this market-driven model, the Medicare
program could solicit private plans to compete for its millions
of clients. Not only has this been proven to drive down prices,
but also encourage private plans to meet the demands of consumers,
and this reform would undoubtedly meet the needs of ‘home-bound’ consumers
who prefer community-based services. I also support allowing retirees
to carry private insurance policies with them into retirement with
a government subsidy.
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
expanding the options for Medicare recipients, including the choice of where
to receive long-term or personal care. I understand that institutional care is
more easily managed, and that there may be an increased cost to ‘exporting’ those
services, so to speak, to personal homes, but I believe the increased
consumer satisfaction and quality of life that community-based care
would produce are well worth it. As I described earlier, I believe
in the power of preventative care, and I believe that we can help
people stay in their homes and communities for longer if we would
only invest more in rehabilitative, preventative, and home-based
care. As the need for long-term care increases, a serious investigation
of ways to improve care giver training and access should be considered.
An effort to create long-term care insurance that can help pay for
nursing home or home health care services would help to ensure that
elderly Americans are not forced to choose between poverty and health
care.
