Candidate
Questions & Responses
Patty
Wetterling
DFL Candidate
for U.S. House of Representatives
6th 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
share the concerns of many activists that this law has potentially
disturbing consequences for non-elderly disabled Americans receiving
Medicare. Under the law, persons with disabilities who are currently
eligible for Medicare and Medicaid will lose their prescription
drug benefit under Medicaid and will have to enroll in Medicare's
benefit. This would be acceptable if the new Medicare benefit adequately
addresses the needs of disabled Americans. Since the new benefit
relies heavily on private plans, I worry there will be no incentive
for private insurers to address the needs of disabled Americans.
I also have concerns about
the broader gaps in coverage in the new federal drug benefit. First,
the new law does not allow the government to negotiate lower prices
for Medicare participants and does not allow the reimportation
of drugs from nations such as Canada. I am also concerned that
this law may push seniors into HMOs by forcing traditional Medicare
to compete with private plans. Medicare is at a particularly extreme
disadvantage because of large government subsidies which favor
HMOs. Finally, the law allows seniors to purchase “drug
discount cards.” These cards may in fact limit choices for
seniors by forcing them to choose only one card and locking them
in for a year. To make matters worse, drug companies can make weekly
changes to the drugs on which they offer discounts.
I support a prescription drug benefit that is affordable, substantial,
and forces neither the disabled nor seniors into private plans. This
plan must be sufficient to address the needs of the disabled and
seniors, whether they are rural or urban.
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 would
support increased funding for vocational rehabilitation programs.
These programs have been shown to reduce the tax burden on Americans
by reducing the need for institutionalization and encouraging disabled
Americans into meaningful 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?
I
support IDEA reauthorization that does not strip rights from children
with disabilities. Congress has also neglected to fully fund this
program, and I support full funding of the federal government’s
promise to disabled children.
Please
outline your thoughts on the proposal to "block grant" Medicaid
funding to the states, instead of the currently used formula.
I
do not support proposals to convert Medicaid to a block grant program.
Medicaid is at its core a safety net, and a block grant plan may
undermine this function because states may not be able to respond
sufficiently to increased needs for health care during economic
slowdowns if the federal contribution is capped.
Do
you support the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment
Act of 2003?
Yes.
As a child safety advocate, I have worked with many families who
have been affected by mental illness. Many runaway children suffer
from depression and would benefit from mental health care. Consequently,
I support the Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment
Act of 2003. Mental health is too often overlooked, and this important
legislation will fill unfair gaps in mental health coverage. It
has broad support from both parties and Congress should act on
it.
How
is Minnesota doing in response to the 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead
decision?
The
1999 Olmstead decision challenged federal, state, and local governments
to develop more opportunities for individuals with disabilities
through more accessible systems of cost-effective community-based
services. As of 2001, Minnesota was one of ten states which did
not have a taskforce to assess current long-term care systems.
State officials believe existing programs designed to improve
community integration are sufficient. To date, no Olmstead-related
suits have been filed in Minnesota. However, barriers such as affordable
housing, service providers, and general funding stand in the way
of full integration. Time will tell whether state officials’ actions
suffice. If their actions prove inadequate, I would consider calling
for a taskforce similar to those in other states.
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"?
Medicare
provides only limited funding for long-term care, covering primarily
short stays in nursing homes for rehabilitative care. Medicaid
allows greater access to long-term care, but its strict eligibility
criteria require that seniors exhaust most of their assets to qualify.
I support expanding the Medicare system to provide greater access
to a range of long-term care services, so that people with long-term
care needs receive the least restrictive care possible.
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
H.R. 2032, the Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act of
2003. This legislation would fill gaps in the Medicaid program to allow greater
coverage of community-based services. These programs are more cost-efficient
than institutionalization, and many nursing home residents prefer community-based
care. H.R. 1811, which I also support, would allow families of disabled children
to purchase coverage under the Medicaid Program for these children.
