Sunday, July 5, 2020

July 5, 2020 Legislative Summary


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.