I’ve
seen a lot of Facebook jokes about turning 2020 back in and asking for a new
year, and I can certainly relate to that from the perspective of a summation of
the legislative session. Perhaps it’s apt that this end-of-session summary
comes in July instead of May – and comes when the session isn’t over yet, since
we have to return in September.
I’m
pretty new to Facebook. I’ve used it in the past pretty much just to share occasional
pictures, but I jumped in with both feet in March to communicate updates on the
pandemic to constituents. I have to give a big kudos to Front Porch Forum,
which for three months suspended its monthly posting limit for public officials
to likewise allow an expanded ability for information-sharing.
As
a whole, I think the legislature fulfilled its duties well in the face of a
crisis. In two days’ time in early March we passed sweeping legislation to
empower the executive branch to take actions as needed to keep government (and
in particular, health and human services) going. We then bumbled our way
through Zoom goof-ups and struggled with a process that is dependent upon
dialogue and face-to-face engagement that was forced to play out awkwardly over
a computer screen instead. At the end of June, we passed a first quarter budget
and allocated more than $800 million in federal relief funds to help form the
base of a Vermont recovery.
I
was not happy with all of the decisions, or the hectic process and lack of
testimony or discussion, but as a whole, we pulled together as best as we were
able to identify and meet priority needs. I think we needed to put more into
economic recovery for our business community, which was devastated as a result
of government directives to close down. Without their recovery, nothing much
else will fall into place. But a major grant program is now underway, and
represents a fair amount of what the governor recommended.
It
represents a classic tension: are people helped most when the economy is restored,
which argues for the investment going there, first? Or if the economy is in
dire straits, does more need to be invested, first, in direct help to those
without jobs or other supports? One of the largest investments that the
legislature prioritized at a higher level than the Governor was housing and
social service supports to get previously homeless folks into permanent, stable
housing.
These
included some long-term investments in housing stock, along with short-term
rental subsidies. I was a bit nonplussed, however, when one member of the
committee happily asserted that by getting everyone into a home, we may lick
the problem of homelessness once and for all. That assumes that if every person
who is currently homeless (and is temporarily in a motel) is able to become
housed, there will never be new folks in crisis.
Some
years ago, on the Human Services Committee, we delved deeply into the data on
families receiving Reach Up support. Contrary to commonly-held assumptions, it
showed that the overwhelming majority of families are only on the program for a
year or two, using it as intended to get back on their feet. There will always
be a small number who struggle more, as well as a few who abuse any system and
give everyone a bad name, but they are a minority.
Homelessness,
likewise, is not an issue for only a set group of people at a single point in
time. We will need to continue to give folks a helping hand – because that is
what a caring society does – but one big investment is not going to end the
cycle. I don’t oppose the investments we made with the federal aid, but I think
we may be overselling the long-term benefits. When it comes to tough choices,
more investment in rebuilding jobs may do more to help keep families out of
crisis than a one-time shot in the arm for housing.
***
Items
of Contention
While
most of the big initiatives were achieved through compromise and consensus,
there were partisan skirmishes. One was a debate over approving the state
employee Pay Act now, as part of the first quarter budget, or waiting until
September. We’re holding off on the full year budget because we know so little
yet about what the economic impact is going to be from the pandemic and whether
there is going to be more federal aid to states. From my perspective, locking
in the Pay Act increases may force our hand in September for more layoffs,
instead of being able to make educated judgements then. The Pay Act was voted
in, however.
At
the same time, we passed a change to existing law about how legislator salaries
are increased. Currently, they are tied to the state employee COLA adjustment.
Under the change, we will also add whatever we vote on annually for increases
to statewide elected officers.
Supporters
claimed we were not passing a pay raise for ourselves, because it has no impact
this year (or in fact, in any year, unless we increase the pay rate for
constitutional offices – which we happen to do, most years.) They also argued,
in a bit of a contradiction, that increased pay was necessary to enable more
people to be able to afford to run for office.
I
think we do need to be looking at the issue of whether legislative pay allows
for equitable opportunity. However, choosing to change the formula for
automatic future increases at the very same time that we are freezing jobs and
facing a huge budget deficit, and with thousands of Vermonters out of work and
facing an uncertain future, is a slap in the face to our constituents.
I
asked for the issue to be separated out from the Pay Act to vote on it as a
specific item, and some Democrats joined in opposition, but the change in the
formula passed nonetheless, 82-61.
***
Health
Care
We
set aside the largest piece of federal aid for stabilizing our health care
system. We also extended many of the emergency provisions of executive
authority to amend or suspend regulations. One question that raised: if all
those regulations can be set aside, do we really need them all?
So
here is a random example of what these waivers actually mean. Let’s say that
under current rules, residential care homes are required to be inspected at
least annually. I’m comfortable with saying that if the state needs all hands
on deck to respond to a pandemic, we need to allow the discretion to waive some
inspections until staff are available to do them. I’m not comfortable with
saying that this demonstrates that we don’t need to require inspections at all.
The
health system’s financial crisis raised an entire other set of questions. It
was a dramatic illustration of some of what is wrong with the way it functions
now. Doctors and hospitals are paid for each service. When services are
suspended, there are no revenues. It’s just like when a restaurant isn’t
serving meals any more.
Yet
we expected that system to be fully functional and able to handle a potentially
catastrophic level of COVID-19 illness. We have an expectation of a level of
“serving the public good” that we need to be prepared to pay for. It makes a
good argument for the health payment reform model that Vermont is experimenting
with right now. If payers (the insurers) reimburse for overall care, rather
than per service, it seems likely that we can run a better and more efficient
system.
Because
we have multiple payers (Medicare, Medicaid, and private), that means funneling
them all through one entity that represents all of the participating providers.
That’s why it is called an “all payer model.” In Vermont’s experiment, that
entity is an accountable care organization called OneCare.
The
state auditor came out with a report last week that critiqued the state’s
oversight board for not doing enough to verify that OneCare is saving enough
money to justify the cost of its oversight. That is, indeed, the multi-million
dollar question, and has been my concern since day one. Will this new
mega-bureaucracy pay its own way? The auditor is spot-on. We have to find
better ways to analyze this before we extend the model.
But
I did find one of the critiques amusing. The auditor noted that OneCare is a
monopoly, which he said creates serious risks for both cost containment and
quality. Ah, yes. Like, perhaps, a government-run system might be?
***
Looking
Ahead
Although
in theory we are returning in September only because we have to finish the
budget for the remaining three-quarters of the year, once back in session,
every bill that is partway through the process – through either the House or
Senate – remains in play.
So
depending on time, efficiency, and the will of the majority, some major issues abandoned
in March could be back on the table, such as the climate change bill (which has
awesome goals, but turns all authority over from the legislature to an
appointed board) and the tax-and-regulate marijuana bill (which is currently at
an impasse between House and Senate versions.)
The
other ongoing issue will be addressing racial disparities and standards for police
use of force. The Senate sent over two bills the week before we adjourned, and
has a third on the way, related to policing.
The
House, very wisely, put the brakes on the rush job. Doing something, just to
show we did something in response to a national crisis, is not usually a wise
course. Over an intense 3-day period, two House Committees looked at the Senate
work and focused on a few narrow consensus points that could be addressed in
the short term: state police body cameras, and a chokehold ban.
But
as a whole, they listened to the stakeholders, who asked that they slow down
and do it right.
There
is an old saying that taxes cannot be both simple and fair. The process of
legislation cannot be both expedited and inclusive. Inclusive is what matters
in addressing systemic racism, because one of the reasons it continues to exist
is that we do not listen to the very people who are most affected.
I
learned the slogan, “nothing about out, without us,” from my disability
community, but it applies broadly. Doing things “on behalf of” others without
including their voices merely perpetuates the dismissal of those voices and
thus the disenfranchisement that is at the very root of many of our deepest
issues of inequity.
We
have a long road to go, but have committed to going beyond just the first steps
– the further work done in September will still just be the beginning.
***
Feel
free to get in touch any time with Rep. Goslant and me. It is an honor to serve
you. (kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us; adonahue@leg.state.vt.us) This and all of
my previous legislative updates are available at
representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment