Nanci Wilson
Reporting
(CBS 42) AUSTIN One of Governor Perry’s top appointees is being questioned about his ties to a non-profit organization that's received more than a million dollars in state contracts.
Health and Human Services commissioner Albert Hawkins has been in the hot seat over problems with the billion dollar contract with Accenture for the welfare system and several other problems with child welfare and the mental health system.
Now, it's Hawkins’ relationship with a non-profit organization and his alleged failure to disclose it as required by law.
Democratic candidate Chris Bell is raising ethical concerns about one of Perry’s top appointees. Bell says Hawkins--the executive commissioner for Texas Health and Human Services is on the board of a non-profit organization that's received more than a million dollars in state contracts.
State lawmakers and heads of state agencies control billions of taxpayer dollars and to make sure the public knows if one of the decision-makers benefits from any of the state contracts, officials are required to file personal financial statements with the Texas Ethics Commission.
They must disclose if they have a relationship with any business or organizations.
CBS 42 pulled commissioner Hawkins filings for the past three years and found he did not disclose his position as a member of the board of trustees for the Texas Institute of Health Policy Research.
In the past couple of years, the group has been awarded more than a million dollars in consulting contracts by the state.Hawkins is listed on the group's Web site and in the group's IRS tax returns. He was appointed to the position by Governor Rick Perry.CBS 42 caught up with Perry on the campaign trail.
“Number one that's news to me,” Perry said. “If that's a conflict we'll get it addressed quickly."
"The problem you have with this kind of behavior is people in power can steer state contracts to organizations and charities they are involved in and can influence state policy,” said Public Citizen spokesman Tom Smitty Smith. “It's a double edge sword."
Failing to disclose such relationships is both a civil and criminal violation. Commissioner Hawkins spokesperson released this statement, “commissioner Hawkins considered this as an honorary position and never attended any meetings. But, nevertheless, he will file a corrected financial statement."
CBS 42 will let you know what happens.
(© MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Politics
Nov. 2, 2006, 4:16PM
Bell seeks probe of health and human services chief
By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSONAssociated Press
TOOLS
AUSTIN — Democratic governor candidate Chris Bell asked the Texas Ethics Commission today to investigate whether the state's health and human services chief broke the law by sitting on the board of a nonprofit organization and failing to disclose it on his personal financial statements.
Albert Hawkins, the executive commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, is a trustee for the Texas Health Institute. The nonpartisan organization is a subsidiary of the Texas Hospital Association, a trade group that represents about 85 percent of the state's hospitals and health care systems.
The institute has received more than $2 million in state contracts, mainly to help implement changes to mental health services. Gov. Rick Perry, who appointed Hawkins to his state post, has been a major advocate of such changes.
Bell, who hopes to unseat Perry in Tuesday's election, said Hawkins' involvement with a contractor violates a Texas law that prohibits state employees from participating in activities that could impair their ability to act independently. He said Hawkins also broke the law by failing to list the position on forms he submitted to the ethics commission.
Hawkins was not immediately available to comment but issued a statement through HHSC spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman saying he was the third state health commissioner to hold the same unpaid, honorary position. He filed an amended personal financial statement on Thursday.
He also released a letter he wrote to the institute's president on Oct. 27 in which he emphasized that he has not attended board meetings or participated in board actions.
"This is clearly someone trying to take an honorary position held by three health and human services commissioners and turn it into something it's not," Goodman said in the statement.
Filing a complaint starts a process that may include a preliminary review as well as informal or formal hearings. The commission could dismiss the complaint or impose a civil penalty.
Bell has been trying win votes by painting Perry and his administration as corrupt.
Independents Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Kinky Friedman and Libertarian James Werner
also are running for governor.
Perry spokesman Robert Black said Bell should stick to talking about his own record and proposals.
"Last time I checked, Albert Hawkins wasn't running for governor," Black said.
Strayhorn spokesman Mark Sanders declined to comment. Friedman's spokeswoman didn't immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.
The Texas Hospital Association lobbies for legislation that will benefit the state's hospitals and health care systems. The association's political action committee donated $10,000 to Perry's campaign in September, ethics commission documents show.
Bell filed the complaint that led the House Ethics Committee to admonish then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for ethics violations. It was one of a string of problems for the once-powerful Republican that eventually led to DeLay's resignation from Congress.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/politics/4306583.html
Bell seeks probe of health and human services chief
By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSONAssociated Press
TOOLS
AUSTIN — Democratic governor candidate Chris Bell asked the Texas Ethics Commission today to investigate whether the state's health and human services chief broke the law by sitting on the board of a nonprofit organization and failing to disclose it on his personal financial statements.
Albert Hawkins, the executive commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, is a trustee for the Texas Health Institute. The nonpartisan organization is a subsidiary of the Texas Hospital Association, a trade group that represents about 85 percent of the state's hospitals and health care systems.
The institute has received more than $2 million in state contracts, mainly to help implement changes to mental health services. Gov. Rick Perry, who appointed Hawkins to his state post, has been a major advocate of such changes.
Bell, who hopes to unseat Perry in Tuesday's election, said Hawkins' involvement with a contractor violates a Texas law that prohibits state employees from participating in activities that could impair their ability to act independently. He said Hawkins also broke the law by failing to list the position on forms he submitted to the ethics commission.
Hawkins was not immediately available to comment but issued a statement through HHSC spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman saying he was the third state health commissioner to hold the same unpaid, honorary position. He filed an amended personal financial statement on Thursday.
He also released a letter he wrote to the institute's president on Oct. 27 in which he emphasized that he has not attended board meetings or participated in board actions.
"This is clearly someone trying to take an honorary position held by three health and human services commissioners and turn it into something it's not," Goodman said in the statement.
Filing a complaint starts a process that may include a preliminary review as well as informal or formal hearings. The commission could dismiss the complaint or impose a civil penalty.
Bell has been trying win votes by painting Perry and his administration as corrupt.
Independents Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Kinky Friedman and Libertarian James Werner
also are running for governor.
Perry spokesman Robert Black said Bell should stick to talking about his own record and proposals.
"Last time I checked, Albert Hawkins wasn't running for governor," Black said.
Strayhorn spokesman Mark Sanders declined to comment. Friedman's spokeswoman didn't immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.
The Texas Hospital Association lobbies for legislation that will benefit the state's hospitals and health care systems. The association's political action committee donated $10,000 to Perry's campaign in September, ethics commission documents show.
Bell filed the complaint that led the House Ethics Committee to admonish then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for ethics violations. It was one of a string of problems for the once-powerful Republican that eventually led to DeLay's resignation from Congress.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/politics/4306583.html
Opinion: New Benefit System Suits More Texans
Albert Hawkins
Special to the San Antonio Express-News
5/31/2006
The San Antonio Express-News has published several news stories and columns about the state's plan to add new ways for Texans to apply for services such as Medicaid and food stamps.
But all have failed to include an important point of view - that of the client.
I understand the concerns of special-interest groups and employees worried about the loss of state jobs.
But my primary focus is on the millions of Texans who rely on our services.
We are listening to their voices, and they tell us they are ready for change.
A recent survey of more than 1,000 Texans enrolled in Medicaid and other health and human services programs found 80 percent of clients said they would be interested in applying by phone, and 82 percent want to be able to apply outside of normal work hours.
We recognize that some clients prefer to conduct business in person at a state benefits office.
While the Express-News is fond of saying the state "will shutter state offices," the truth is that we will maintain more than 200 offices across Texas.
San Antonio will continue to have four state benefits offices.
Two San Antonio offices will close - one is located on the same block as another benefits office and the other is within five miles of two other offices.
The project is not without its share of critics.
There are some who philosophically oppose outsourcing state functions to the private sector.
I appreciate that political position, but our approach has been driven by the statutory requirement to determine the most effective and efficient way to deliver services.
Our analysis found that contracting for call center services would generate more savings than state-run call centers.
All calls are answered in Texas, and one of the four call centers is located in San Antonio. The contract includes strict performance standards to ensure the state doesn't pay for services that aren't delivered, and we have identified several areas where improvements must be made.
In the meantime, we have delayed the rollout of the new system.
The Express-News recently ran an article about a letter signed by four members of the Texas congressional delegation opposing our efforts to expand the ways Texans can apply for state services ("Congressmen attack privatization plan," Thursday).
I was disappointed that the paper did not give equal attention to a letter signed by
20 Texas representatives in support of the project. As these leaders pointed out, there is a clear need for change.
Our system is badly out of date.
It uses a computer system built on a language that colleges no longer teach.
Its one-size-fits-all approach makes it especially difficult for the working poor - people who must take off work to go sit in an office.
We still send Medicaid letters to clients each month - at a cost of almost $750,000 for each mailing.
I understand and expect that a project of this magnitude will be closely watched by the public, legislators and the press.
We will continue to monitor the project's performance; act quickly and aggressively to improve shortcomings; and provide regular updates on our progress.
Certainly, we still need to improve the project's performance, but that is not an argument for maintaining an inefficient and outdated system.
We're still in the earliest phases of this project, but we remain committed to creating a system that works better and costs less.
Albert Hawkins is Health and Human Services executive commissioner.
Indiana Gov. Stirs Debate Over Welfare Privatization
Niki Kelly
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette
5/31/2005
INDIANAPOLIS - Gov. Mitch Daniels has inserted himself into the attempt to privatize the Family and Social Services Administration's eligibility operation.
In a response letter released Tuesday to AFSCME Council 62 - a state employees union - Daniels said the decision is an important one for the state, and "it will be made by me and me alone."
FSSA this year sought bids from outside companies that want to collect information from applicants and determine eligibility for Medicaid, food stamps, child-care vouchers, welfare and several other assistance programs.
The contract is estimated to be worth $1 billion over 10 years.
About 2,600 state employees perform those duties at county offices around the state.
AFSCME Executive Director David Warrick sent a letter May 18 to Daniels asking him to drop the privatization plan and work within the structure of state government to fix the system's problems or provide a cost-benefit analysis for the change.
"Providing welfare services requires dedicated and knowledgeable employees that understand the system and can help those most in need navigate the process," Warrick said. "In several states where privatization of these services has been attempted, inadequately trained workers have given applicants erroneous or contradictory information that has resulted in loss or refusal of benefits in which they are entitled."
And publicity about the two bidders hasn't been exactly positive. The lead company on the first bid is Accenture LLP, which had major problems on a similar project in Texas. The second bid is from IBM in conjunction with bidding partner ACS.
FSSA Secretary Mitch Roob worked for ACS from 2001 until he came to state government at the request of Daniels in early 2005.
Originally, the state agency had hoped to announce in May the company it would enter into final negotiations with, as well as release a proposed contract sometime in June with a public hearing on June 29. But in recent weeks, the Family and Social Services Administration has slowed the process.
"We are not going to rush the decision process based on some artificial deadline that we ourselves established," FSSA spokesman Dennis Rosebrough said. "Neither (bid) is a concern-free pick. But we are convinced, and the data is so compelling, that we need to fix this and we need to fix it now.
If there are some bumps - however they may occur - we are willing to accept that because we think the citizens of Indiana - both the applicants and the service recipients as well as taxpayers of Indiana - deserve a better more efficient system and it's worth it."
And while Roob was involved in the philosophical and policy discussion behind seeking bids from the private sector, Rosebrough said he has been removed from the decision-making process - both figuratively and literally because he will have back surgery today that will keep him out of the office for several weeks.
In his response letter, Daniels said that because of the gravity of the contract, he has added an extra step to the normal procurement decision process, which is usually handled by the agency seeking the contract and the Department of Administration.
In this case, the governor has established an interagency team to review the two bids and recommend whether to move ahead with negotiations with either company.
The team members include deputy chief of staff Earl Goode; Department of Administration Commissioner Carrie Henderson; Nate Feltman, chief of staff and general counsel for the Indiana Economic Development Corp.; Karl Browning in the Office of Technology; State Budget Director Chuck Schalliol; and Debra Minot, director of the State Personnel Department.
According to the letter, the proposals must "likely" meet six criteria,
including: reducing unacceptably high rates or error and waste in the welfare system; saving Hoosier taxpayer's money and ensuring that every state employee receives an offer either from the vendor at current wage rates and similar benefits or to stay with the state.
The team has already met twice and will visit county welfare offices soon to review responses to the bids.
"You've expressed concern that a new approach might not work perfectly and it may well not," Daniels said. "But it is hard to imagine a system that performs worse than the one we have now."
Warrick responded by saying AFSCME asked the governor to provide a cost-benefit analysis and Daniels has ignored that request.
"There is no evidence anywhere to think that using a private company will solve the error rates and waste. If there is, I wish the governor would show us and Hoosier taxpayers who will be footing the bill for this risky privatization scheme," he said.
"Until he provides real numbers and data, his assertions that privatization will cure all the ills in the welfare system is just rhetoric to justify selling off more state services to corporations looking to profit from those Hoosiers who most need our help."
Athens Call Center Still on Target
Cristin Ross
Athens Review
5/23/2006
Despite running into problems at its San Antonio center, Accenture is hoping to open the doors to its Athens office this summer.
Reports of unexpectedly long wait times and inadequately trained operators had the Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins announcing in early April, the project would be postponed, but that won't affect the Athens center.
"I haven't heard anything on postponing the Athens center," Accenture spokeswoman Stephanie Goodwin said on Friday. "The problems we're having in San Antonio are more of a technical variety, and not as severe as first thought. We feel pretty confident we can work through those problems soon.
"With the volume of calls we have been getting, we still absolutely need the Athens center."
According to Accenture's Web site, www.accenture.com, the Bermuda-based company is "a technology consultant and systems integrator."
The company was recently chosen to privatize part of the state's social services, like the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and long-term care. The state announced plans last year to replace 99 of its 310 eligibility offices with four centers to be run by Texas Access Alliance.
These centers allows people to apply for various state program benefits over the phone, online and in person. Midland's center went on line in January - the same time several changes to the application process and in eligibility requirements went into effect.
The center in Athens has been in the works since December 2005, when the company chose Athens over three other cities, including Longview.
"This is wonderful for this community," Athens Economic Development Corporation Executive Director Herbert Gatlin said. "This caliber of company and its affiliates promises to bring good jobs with good pay to the area.
They are a first class group."
The AEDC helped bring the center to town by offering incentives like job incentives and helping fund the massive remodeling of the building on Corsicana Street that formerly housed the K-Mart retail store.
"The building is coming along nicely," said AEDC office administrator Mary Waddell, who toured the building last week.
Renovations aren't complete as yet, as officials said they still wanted to paint the building exterior to obliterate some graffiti on one side of the building.
"I think they want to wait on that until they put up the security fence,"
Waddell said.
Various manager and customer service representative positions are already being filled through the East Texas Workforce Center. Anyone interested in applying may contact the center, 903-677-3521, before June 5.
Albert Hawkins
Special to the San Antonio Express-News
5/31/2006
The San Antonio Express-News has published several news stories and columns about the state's plan to add new ways for Texans to apply for services such as Medicaid and food stamps.
But all have failed to include an important point of view - that of the client.
I understand the concerns of special-interest groups and employees worried about the loss of state jobs.
But my primary focus is on the millions of Texans who rely on our services.
We are listening to their voices, and they tell us they are ready for change.
A recent survey of more than 1,000 Texans enrolled in Medicaid and other health and human services programs found 80 percent of clients said they would be interested in applying by phone, and 82 percent want to be able to apply outside of normal work hours.
We recognize that some clients prefer to conduct business in person at a state benefits office.
While the Express-News is fond of saying the state "will shutter state offices," the truth is that we will maintain more than 200 offices across Texas.
San Antonio will continue to have four state benefits offices.
Two San Antonio offices will close - one is located on the same block as another benefits office and the other is within five miles of two other offices.
The project is not without its share of critics.
There are some who philosophically oppose outsourcing state functions to the private sector.
I appreciate that political position, but our approach has been driven by the statutory requirement to determine the most effective and efficient way to deliver services.
Our analysis found that contracting for call center services would generate more savings than state-run call centers.
All calls are answered in Texas, and one of the four call centers is located in San Antonio. The contract includes strict performance standards to ensure the state doesn't pay for services that aren't delivered, and we have identified several areas where improvements must be made.
In the meantime, we have delayed the rollout of the new system.
The Express-News recently ran an article about a letter signed by four members of the Texas congressional delegation opposing our efforts to expand the ways Texans can apply for state services ("Congressmen attack privatization plan," Thursday).
I was disappointed that the paper did not give equal attention to a letter signed by
20 Texas representatives in support of the project. As these leaders pointed out, there is a clear need for change.
Our system is badly out of date.
It uses a computer system built on a language that colleges no longer teach.
Its one-size-fits-all approach makes it especially difficult for the working poor - people who must take off work to go sit in an office.
We still send Medicaid letters to clients each month - at a cost of almost $750,000 for each mailing.
I understand and expect that a project of this magnitude will be closely watched by the public, legislators and the press.
We will continue to monitor the project's performance; act quickly and aggressively to improve shortcomings; and provide regular updates on our progress.
Certainly, we still need to improve the project's performance, but that is not an argument for maintaining an inefficient and outdated system.
We're still in the earliest phases of this project, but we remain committed to creating a system that works better and costs less.
Albert Hawkins is Health and Human Services executive commissioner.
Indiana Gov. Stirs Debate Over Welfare Privatization
Niki Kelly
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette
5/31/2005
INDIANAPOLIS - Gov. Mitch Daniels has inserted himself into the attempt to privatize the Family and Social Services Administration's eligibility operation.
In a response letter released Tuesday to AFSCME Council 62 - a state employees union - Daniels said the decision is an important one for the state, and "it will be made by me and me alone."
FSSA this year sought bids from outside companies that want to collect information from applicants and determine eligibility for Medicaid, food stamps, child-care vouchers, welfare and several other assistance programs.
The contract is estimated to be worth $1 billion over 10 years.
About 2,600 state employees perform those duties at county offices around the state.
AFSCME Executive Director David Warrick sent a letter May 18 to Daniels asking him to drop the privatization plan and work within the structure of state government to fix the system's problems or provide a cost-benefit analysis for the change.
"Providing welfare services requires dedicated and knowledgeable employees that understand the system and can help those most in need navigate the process," Warrick said. "In several states where privatization of these services has been attempted, inadequately trained workers have given applicants erroneous or contradictory information that has resulted in loss or refusal of benefits in which they are entitled."
And publicity about the two bidders hasn't been exactly positive. The lead company on the first bid is Accenture LLP, which had major problems on a similar project in Texas. The second bid is from IBM in conjunction with bidding partner ACS.
FSSA Secretary Mitch Roob worked for ACS from 2001 until he came to state government at the request of Daniels in early 2005.
Originally, the state agency had hoped to announce in May the company it would enter into final negotiations with, as well as release a proposed contract sometime in June with a public hearing on June 29. But in recent weeks, the Family and Social Services Administration has slowed the process.
"We are not going to rush the decision process based on some artificial deadline that we ourselves established," FSSA spokesman Dennis Rosebrough said. "Neither (bid) is a concern-free pick. But we are convinced, and the data is so compelling, that we need to fix this and we need to fix it now.
If there are some bumps - however they may occur - we are willing to accept that because we think the citizens of Indiana - both the applicants and the service recipients as well as taxpayers of Indiana - deserve a better more efficient system and it's worth it."
And while Roob was involved in the philosophical and policy discussion behind seeking bids from the private sector, Rosebrough said he has been removed from the decision-making process - both figuratively and literally because he will have back surgery today that will keep him out of the office for several weeks.
In his response letter, Daniels said that because of the gravity of the contract, he has added an extra step to the normal procurement decision process, which is usually handled by the agency seeking the contract and the Department of Administration.
In this case, the governor has established an interagency team to review the two bids and recommend whether to move ahead with negotiations with either company.
The team members include deputy chief of staff Earl Goode; Department of Administration Commissioner Carrie Henderson; Nate Feltman, chief of staff and general counsel for the Indiana Economic Development Corp.; Karl Browning in the Office of Technology; State Budget Director Chuck Schalliol; and Debra Minot, director of the State Personnel Department.
According to the letter, the proposals must "likely" meet six criteria,
including: reducing unacceptably high rates or error and waste in the welfare system; saving Hoosier taxpayer's money and ensuring that every state employee receives an offer either from the vendor at current wage rates and similar benefits or to stay with the state.
The team has already met twice and will visit county welfare offices soon to review responses to the bids.
"You've expressed concern that a new approach might not work perfectly and it may well not," Daniels said. "But it is hard to imagine a system that performs worse than the one we have now."
Warrick responded by saying AFSCME asked the governor to provide a cost-benefit analysis and Daniels has ignored that request.
"There is no evidence anywhere to think that using a private company will solve the error rates and waste. If there is, I wish the governor would show us and Hoosier taxpayers who will be footing the bill for this risky privatization scheme," he said.
"Until he provides real numbers and data, his assertions that privatization will cure all the ills in the welfare system is just rhetoric to justify selling off more state services to corporations looking to profit from those Hoosiers who most need our help."
Athens Call Center Still on Target
Cristin Ross
Athens Review
5/23/2006
Despite running into problems at its San Antonio center, Accenture is hoping to open the doors to its Athens office this summer.
Reports of unexpectedly long wait times and inadequately trained operators had the Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins announcing in early April, the project would be postponed, but that won't affect the Athens center.
"I haven't heard anything on postponing the Athens center," Accenture spokeswoman Stephanie Goodwin said on Friday. "The problems we're having in San Antonio are more of a technical variety, and not as severe as first thought. We feel pretty confident we can work through those problems soon.
"With the volume of calls we have been getting, we still absolutely need the Athens center."
According to Accenture's Web site, www.accenture.com, the Bermuda-based company is "a technology consultant and systems integrator."
The company was recently chosen to privatize part of the state's social services, like the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and long-term care. The state announced plans last year to replace 99 of its 310 eligibility offices with four centers to be run by Texas Access Alliance.
These centers allows people to apply for various state program benefits over the phone, online and in person. Midland's center went on line in January - the same time several changes to the application process and in eligibility requirements went into effect.
The center in Athens has been in the works since December 2005, when the company chose Athens over three other cities, including Longview.
"This is wonderful for this community," Athens Economic Development Corporation Executive Director Herbert Gatlin said. "This caliber of company and its affiliates promises to bring good jobs with good pay to the area.
They are a first class group."
The AEDC helped bring the center to town by offering incentives like job incentives and helping fund the massive remodeling of the building on Corsicana Street that formerly housed the K-Mart retail store.
"The building is coming along nicely," said AEDC office administrator Mary Waddell, who toured the building last week.
Renovations aren't complete as yet, as officials said they still wanted to paint the building exterior to obliterate some graffiti on one side of the building.
"I think they want to wait on that until they put up the security fence,"
Waddell said.
Various manager and customer service representative positions are already being filled through the East Texas Workforce Center. Anyone interested in applying may contact the center, 903-677-3521, before June 5.
State Representative Garnet F. Coleman
Dear Friend,
The Dallas Morning News had a story yesterday about some deceptive talk from Rick Perry and Republicans around the state about the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). As someone who cares deeply about children's issues and public health, the kind of misleading campaign-year rhetoric about CHIP is almost as frustrating as the consequences of the cuts the Republican-led legislature and governor made in 2003. I've included here the newspaper article as well as a release from my office on CHIP. I would encourage you to read them both and remember that providing quality health care for our children starts with electing leadership who make that a priority.
Sincerely,
Garnet F. Coleman
State Representative District 147
Foe disputes Perry on CHIP
Bell backer says funds unused, enrollees down; GOP aide defends plan
08:22 AM CDT on Wednesday, October 25, 2006
By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – A Democratic lawmaker Tuesday accused Gov. Rick Perry and Republican candidates of spreading "lies and half-truths" to disguise their rollback of children's health coverage.
The governor and some of the GOP's House candidates have made "bogus" statements about government health insurance for children, said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston.
He disputed a Perry campaign spokesman's comments last week that enrollment of young Texans in the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid is up and that the state has "fully funded" CHIP and not let federal matching dollars slip through its fingers.
"Frankly, they think people are stupid," said Mr. Coleman, a key House health-care policy writer when Democrats ran the chamber and a supporter of Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Chris Bell.
Perry campaign spokesman Robert Black stood by his statements and defended recent changes as necessary to prevent abuse of CHIP by undeserving families.
"Garnet Coleman is a typical liberal Democrat who does not care one bit about spending taxpayer funds wisely," he said.
Mr. Coleman said the two health programs that cover poor children made strong gains early in Mr. Perry's tenure but have been crippled by budget cuts in 2003 and last year's switch of contractors who enroll families in CHIP.
Among the "Republican myths" cited by Mr. Coleman:
•Enrollments are up. The Perry campaign chooses 1999 as a starting point, to say the number of youngsters covered "has increased by over 1 million."
But CHIP, designed for children of working-but-poor adults, didn't crank up until 2000. Since Mr. Perry and lawmakers cut CHIP in 2003, combined enrollment in it and Medicaid has declined by about 130,000 children.
•"The CHIP program is fully funded," Mr. Black said last week, rebutting a Bell TV spot.
Mr. Coleman said that's technically true but misleading. He said lawmakers last year set aside
enough money for children expected to enroll, but it is a much diminished program with enrollment down 41 percent because of changes in CHIP eligibility and enrollment rules made in 2003.
•"No federal funds go unused," Mr. Black said.
"Ridiculous," Mr. Coleman said. "We're not using all the federal funds allocated to Texas, and those are going to other states."
Depending on which years one looks at, both could be right.
Independent analyses of federal data show that from 2000 to 2005, Texas passed up $832 million of federal funds it could have spent on CHIP.The pile of unspent federal funds is likely to grow, after Texas reports data for the budget year that ended Aug. 31.
Mr. Black insisted Texas soon will "use up our remaining federal funds." It's possible, though only for this and future budget years.
Ted Hughes of the Health and Human Services Commission said state use of federal CHIP matching money will surge if a new initiative to have the program cover costs of prenatal and after-birth care begins in January, as scheduled.
E-mail rtgarrett@dallasnews.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Phillip Martin
October 23, 2006 (512) 463-0524
Rep. Coleman: Perry Created Permanent Wall for CHIP Families
CHIP Policies enacted in 2003 make it impossible for CHIP enrollment to increase
( Austin )--State Representative Garnet F. Coleman (D-Houston) announced today that Governor Perry and the Republican leadership purposefully enacted policies to strip away children's health care for thousands of Texas children. The budget cuts in House Bill 1 and the policies implemented in House Bill 2292 during the 78th Regular Session created obstacles that automatically disqualify hundreds of thousands of children from ever receiving coverage under CHIP.
"Governor Perry and the Republican leadership outlawed children's health care for two-hundred thousand Texas families," Rep. Coleman said. "They built a permanent wall to ensure that hundreds of thousands of hard-working Texas families that had received CHIP coverage prior to 2003 could never receive CHIP coverage again."
The "permanent wall" built in 2003 created restrictive requirements -- including a new "assets test," a more frequent enrollment process, an enrollment fee, the elimination of certain deductions, and more -- that made it harder for families to stay on CHIP and made it difficult for any new family to enroll in CHIP.
Much has been made of Governor Perry's awarding an $899 million contract to Accenture to allow them to, among other things, take over processing CHIP applications. However, prior to Accenture taking over, more than 184,000 children had already lost their CHIP coverage since the Republican policies were enacted in September 2003. Today, 200,000 fewer children are enrolled in CHIP than in September 2003.
"It's campaign season, and they want to create an illusion that everything is okay," Rep. Coleman said. "But numbers don't lie. In the last year alone, the state has allowed a lmost $400 million in state funds appropriated for CHIP & Medicaid to go unspent. That extra money -- which is now just sitting in the state's bank account -- would have easily covered every Texas child that lost CHIP coverage since May 2002."
"The only reason Texas has more uninsured children than any other state in the country is because Governor Perry and the Republican leadership don't consider our children's health a priority."
Please find the following supporting materials in this packet:
A chart detailing CHIP enrollment figures from May 2000 through October 2006
A detailed chart on the policies enacted during the 78th Regular Session in 2003, including an explanation of the restrictive "assets" test
A fact sheet on the FY 2006 CHIP and Medicaid funds that went unspent
A fact sheet on the amount of dollars the state has lost by not fully funding CHIP, as well as information debunking Governor Perry's claims about CHIP
Republicans' Failed Policies Create Permanent CHIP Barrier for Hard-Working Families
The legislation enacted during the 78th Regular Session in 2003 permanently cut hundreds of thousands of children from the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Since the cuts enacted by House Bill 1 and House Bill 2292 took effect on September 1, 2003, over 200,000 children have lost their health care coverage.
Though increased outreach spending and firing Accenture would help, over two-hundred thousand children will never be able to regain access to CHIP until the legislation signed by Governor Perry and the Republican leadership is repealed.
Chip Enrollment Figures from May 2000 - October 2006
High Point , 5/02: 529,271
9/03: 507,259
12/05: 322,898
10/06: 300,685
Source: Health and Human Services Commission and Center for Public Policy Priorities.
Changes in CHIP Enrollment Policies Made in 2003
Policy
Pre-September 2003
September 2003 - Present
New Restriction
Policy prior to Republican Changes
Policy with Republican changes
How the change added restrictions
Renewal Rates
Apply for renewal annually
Apply every 6 months
Families automatically kicked off if they forget to renew annually.
Income Requirements
Income requirements based on "net" income calculation. Allowed for reductions such as child care and work-related expenses.
"Gross" income assessed, which doesn't account for income deductions such as child care costs.
Eliminating deductions automatically disqualified thousands of needy children.
Family Asset Test
None
Assets test for families with incomes of 150% FPL with a limit of $5000 in liquid assets which includes any bank accounts and vehicles.
Working families are punished for attempting to save money for college, retirement.
Proof of Income
Submission of proof of income required only if there was a change in income; single box to check on application, renewal form.
Submission of proof of income and deductible expenses at every renewal by submitting pay stubs from employer.
New requirement not clearly explained
Waiting Period to Enroll Child in CHIP
No waiting period
90-day waiting period. If child enrolls after the 15th of the month, then the waiting period does not begin until the first of the next month, extending wait to 105 days.
Limits children's access to health care for an additional 3-4 months.
Enrollment Fees
No enrollment fees
Enrollment fees up to $50 per 6-month period; co-payments for doctor services and medications.
Stricter cost sharing policies make it more difficult, expensive.
Application
Length of instructions less than half a page
Application is much more cumbersome, w/ 3 pages of instructions and notices
Increases difficulty to enroll/renew at every step.
Renewal Forms
Renewal forms were pre-populated with previously submitted information and only required the family to cross out inaccurate information and make corrections.
Renewal forms are blank so the entire application must be completed anew every 6 months, including income, vehicle information, and bank balances.
Increases difficulty to enroll/renew at every step.
Defining the "A ssets Test"
A family with a gross monthly income greater than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) must own $5000 or less in countable liquid assets and excess vehicle value combined to be eligible for CHIP.
CHIP is meant to assist working families that can't afford health insurance for their children. These restrictive policies -- put in place in 2003 -- punish families that attempt to put money away in a savings account, even if it's for their children's college tuition, for personal retirement, or to purchase a home.
Should a family that already owns a vehicle come into ownership of any additional vehicle over $4,650 -- even if it's given to them by a friend or inherited from a deceased relative -- that family would be kicked off the CHIP program.
· Liquid Assets:
o cash on hand
o cash value of checking and savings accounts
o money remaining from the sale of a homestead
o cash value of stocks, bonds and savings certificates
· Excess vehicle value calculated:
o Countable vehicles include any operable and licensed automobile, truck, motorcycle, SUV, van, boat or motor home (including campers and RVs).
o The value of the vehicle will be based on the Hearst Corp./NAR Division Black Book.
o The family can exempt the first $15,000 of the highest valued vehicle and $4650 of the value of each additional vehicle.
Fact Sheet: CHIP, Medicaid Budget Funds Left Unspent
Almost $400 million in unspent CHIP & Medicaid funds would have covered every Texas child that lost CHIP coverage since May 2002, and covered those that lost Medicaid coverage in FY 2006.
$394.9 Million Left Unspent in FY 2006 Medicaid and CHIP
$4.8 billion in state funds was appropriated for Medicaid in Senate Bill 1
$328.3 million in state funds appropriated for Goal B (Medicaid) for fiscal year 2006 was left unspent and has been carried forward into fiscal year 2007
$199.9 million was appropriated for CHIP Services in Senate Bill 1
$66.6 million in state funds appropriated for Goal C (CHIP Services) was left unspent and has been carried forward into fiscal year 2007
71,412 Fewer Children Enrolled in Medicaid During FY 2006
· September 2005 - 1,980,389 children enrolled
· September 2006 - 1,908,977 children enrolled
35,027 Fewer Children Enrolled in CHIP During FY 2006
September 2005 - 326,557 children enrolled
September 2006 - 291,530 children enrolled
State Dollars Left Unspent Could Have Paid for Health Care Coverage for Medicaid and CHIP Children that Were Kicked Off the Rolls
Number of children that lost CHIP coverage from May 2002 - Today 228,406
Average state dollars needed to cover a child on CHIP: x $450
Amount of state funds needed to cover all children that
have lost CHIP coverage since May 2002 ( #1) $102,782,700
Number of children that lost Medicaid coverage in FY 2006: 71,412
Estimated state dollars needed to cover a child on Medicaid: x $700
Amount of state funds needed to cover all children that
lost Medicaid coverage in FY 2006 ( #2) $49,988,400
Amount of unspent FY '006 state funds for Medicaid and CHIP: $394,000,000
Cost in state funds of restoring CHIP ( #1) - $102,782,700
Cost in state funds of restoring Medicaid ( #2): - $49,988,400
Total Amount of Unspent State Dollars,
after CHIP and Medicaid coverage is restored: $241,228,900
Source: HHSC Response to Inquiries made by the Office of State Representative Garnet Coleman
Fighting the Myth: The Truth About CHIP
Election season campaign announcements from Governor Perry and the Republican leadership cannot cover up three years and nine legislative sessions of neglect. Here's a sampling of lies and half-truths purported by Governor Perry and the Republican leadership:
Republican Myth
Truth About CHIP
CHIP is 100% fully funded at the state level.
CHIP is fully funded at the rate set by the Republican leadership in the 79th Regular Session. Since 2003, the Republican leadership has cut state funds for CHIP by over $50 million, and cut all general revenue funds by over $150 million.
We aren't losing federal funds, or any money, from CHIP or Medicaid.
$1 in net cuts in funding for Medicaid and CHIP results in1:
$3.66 in total health care funding losses
$13.18 in total expenditure losses
$4.80 in personal income losses
$6.92 in gross state product losses
$1.59 in increased insurance premiums
$1.81 in retail sales losses
$0.58 in local government cost increases
$1.52 in out-of-pocket and other private health care costs
New $3.5 million outreach shows commitment to CHIP
Prior to 2003, the state was spending $9.9 million on outreach to assist families that were enrolling and renewing for CHIP.
Hurricane Katrina evacuees have inflated the numbers
9,805 children that are Hurricane Katrina evacuees have enrolled in children's Medicaid (1% of total enrollment).2
316 children that are Hurricane Katrina evacuees have enrolled in CHIP (1% of total enrollment).3
1 Source: The Perryman Group. " The Perryman Report: Special Report. An Assessment of the Impact of the Health Care Sector on the Texas Economy, with Emphasis on the Situation Confronting Hospitals and the Effects of Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Funding Reductions." February, 2005.
2 Source: Health and Human Service Commission response to inquiries made by the Office of State Representative Garnet Coleman. October 16, 2006.
3 Source: Health and Human Service Commission response to inquiries made by the Office of State Representative Garnet Coleman. October 20, 2006.
This e-mail was not sent at state expense.
This CoolerEmail was delivered to you by State Representative Garnet Coleman. You can take your email address off State Representative Garnet Coleman's email list, or update your preferences and/or send comments to State Representative Garnet Coleman. If you request to be taken off State Representative Garnet Coleman's email list, State Representative Garnet Coleman will honor your request pursuant to CoolerEmail's permission-based email terms and conditions. Postal address: 1231 NW Hoyt, Suite 301, Portland, OR 97209 Powered by CoolerEmail
Dear Friend,
The Dallas Morning News had a story yesterday about some deceptive talk from Rick Perry and Republicans around the state about the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). As someone who cares deeply about children's issues and public health, the kind of misleading campaign-year rhetoric about CHIP is almost as frustrating as the consequences of the cuts the Republican-led legislature and governor made in 2003. I've included here the newspaper article as well as a release from my office on CHIP. I would encourage you to read them both and remember that providing quality health care for our children starts with electing leadership who make that a priority.
Sincerely,
Garnet F. Coleman
State Representative District 147
Foe disputes Perry on CHIP
Bell backer says funds unused, enrollees down; GOP aide defends plan
08:22 AM CDT on Wednesday, October 25, 2006
By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – A Democratic lawmaker Tuesday accused Gov. Rick Perry and Republican candidates of spreading "lies and half-truths" to disguise their rollback of children's health coverage.
The governor and some of the GOP's House candidates have made "bogus" statements about government health insurance for children, said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston.
He disputed a Perry campaign spokesman's comments last week that enrollment of young Texans in the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid is up and that the state has "fully funded" CHIP and not let federal matching dollars slip through its fingers.
"Frankly, they think people are stupid," said Mr. Coleman, a key House health-care policy writer when Democrats ran the chamber and a supporter of Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Chris Bell.
Perry campaign spokesman Robert Black stood by his statements and defended recent changes as necessary to prevent abuse of CHIP by undeserving families.
"Garnet Coleman is a typical liberal Democrat who does not care one bit about spending taxpayer funds wisely," he said.
Mr. Coleman said the two health programs that cover poor children made strong gains early in Mr. Perry's tenure but have been crippled by budget cuts in 2003 and last year's switch of contractors who enroll families in CHIP.
Among the "Republican myths" cited by Mr. Coleman:
•Enrollments are up. The Perry campaign chooses 1999 as a starting point, to say the number of youngsters covered "has increased by over 1 million."
But CHIP, designed for children of working-but-poor adults, didn't crank up until 2000. Since Mr. Perry and lawmakers cut CHIP in 2003, combined enrollment in it and Medicaid has declined by about 130,000 children.
•"The CHIP program is fully funded," Mr. Black said last week, rebutting a Bell TV spot.
Mr. Coleman said that's technically true but misleading. He said lawmakers last year set aside
enough money for children expected to enroll, but it is a much diminished program with enrollment down 41 percent because of changes in CHIP eligibility and enrollment rules made in 2003.
•"No federal funds go unused," Mr. Black said.
"Ridiculous," Mr. Coleman said. "We're not using all the federal funds allocated to Texas, and those are going to other states."
Depending on which years one looks at, both could be right.
Independent analyses of federal data show that from 2000 to 2005, Texas passed up $832 million of federal funds it could have spent on CHIP.The pile of unspent federal funds is likely to grow, after Texas reports data for the budget year that ended Aug. 31.
Mr. Black insisted Texas soon will "use up our remaining federal funds." It's possible, though only for this and future budget years.
Ted Hughes of the Health and Human Services Commission said state use of federal CHIP matching money will surge if a new initiative to have the program cover costs of prenatal and after-birth care begins in January, as scheduled.
E-mail rtgarrett@dallasnews.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Phillip Martin
October 23, 2006 (512) 463-0524
Rep. Coleman: Perry Created Permanent Wall for CHIP Families
CHIP Policies enacted in 2003 make it impossible for CHIP enrollment to increase
( Austin )--State Representative Garnet F. Coleman (D-Houston) announced today that Governor Perry and the Republican leadership purposefully enacted policies to strip away children's health care for thousands of Texas children. The budget cuts in House Bill 1 and the policies implemented in House Bill 2292 during the 78th Regular Session created obstacles that automatically disqualify hundreds of thousands of children from ever receiving coverage under CHIP.
"Governor Perry and the Republican leadership outlawed children's health care for two-hundred thousand Texas families," Rep. Coleman said. "They built a permanent wall to ensure that hundreds of thousands of hard-working Texas families that had received CHIP coverage prior to 2003 could never receive CHIP coverage again."
The "permanent wall" built in 2003 created restrictive requirements -- including a new "assets test," a more frequent enrollment process, an enrollment fee, the elimination of certain deductions, and more -- that made it harder for families to stay on CHIP and made it difficult for any new family to enroll in CHIP.
Much has been made of Governor Perry's awarding an $899 million contract to Accenture to allow them to, among other things, take over processing CHIP applications. However, prior to Accenture taking over, more than 184,000 children had already lost their CHIP coverage since the Republican policies were enacted in September 2003. Today, 200,000 fewer children are enrolled in CHIP than in September 2003.
"It's campaign season, and they want to create an illusion that everything is okay," Rep. Coleman said. "But numbers don't lie. In the last year alone, the state has allowed a lmost $400 million in state funds appropriated for CHIP & Medicaid to go unspent. That extra money -- which is now just sitting in the state's bank account -- would have easily covered every Texas child that lost CHIP coverage since May 2002."
"The only reason Texas has more uninsured children than any other state in the country is because Governor Perry and the Republican leadership don't consider our children's health a priority."
Please find the following supporting materials in this packet:
A chart detailing CHIP enrollment figures from May 2000 through October 2006
A detailed chart on the policies enacted during the 78th Regular Session in 2003, including an explanation of the restrictive "assets" test
A fact sheet on the FY 2006 CHIP and Medicaid funds that went unspent
A fact sheet on the amount of dollars the state has lost by not fully funding CHIP, as well as information debunking Governor Perry's claims about CHIP
Republicans' Failed Policies Create Permanent CHIP Barrier for Hard-Working Families
The legislation enacted during the 78th Regular Session in 2003 permanently cut hundreds of thousands of children from the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Since the cuts enacted by House Bill 1 and House Bill 2292 took effect on September 1, 2003, over 200,000 children have lost their health care coverage.
Though increased outreach spending and firing Accenture would help, over two-hundred thousand children will never be able to regain access to CHIP until the legislation signed by Governor Perry and the Republican leadership is repealed.
Chip Enrollment Figures from May 2000 - October 2006
High Point , 5/02: 529,271
9/03: 507,259
12/05: 322,898
10/06: 300,685
Source: Health and Human Services Commission and Center for Public Policy Priorities.
Changes in CHIP Enrollment Policies Made in 2003
Policy
Pre-September 2003
September 2003 - Present
New Restriction
Policy prior to Republican Changes
Policy with Republican changes
How the change added restrictions
Renewal Rates
Apply for renewal annually
Apply every 6 months
Families automatically kicked off if they forget to renew annually.
Income Requirements
Income requirements based on "net" income calculation. Allowed for reductions such as child care and work-related expenses.
"Gross" income assessed, which doesn't account for income deductions such as child care costs.
Eliminating deductions automatically disqualified thousands of needy children.
Family Asset Test
None
Assets test for families with incomes of 150% FPL with a limit of $5000 in liquid assets which includes any bank accounts and vehicles.
Working families are punished for attempting to save money for college, retirement.
Proof of Income
Submission of proof of income required only if there was a change in income; single box to check on application, renewal form.
Submission of proof of income and deductible expenses at every renewal by submitting pay stubs from employer.
New requirement not clearly explained
Waiting Period to Enroll Child in CHIP
No waiting period
90-day waiting period. If child enrolls after the 15th of the month, then the waiting period does not begin until the first of the next month, extending wait to 105 days.
Limits children's access to health care for an additional 3-4 months.
Enrollment Fees
No enrollment fees
Enrollment fees up to $50 per 6-month period; co-payments for doctor services and medications.
Stricter cost sharing policies make it more difficult, expensive.
Application
Length of instructions less than half a page
Application is much more cumbersome, w/ 3 pages of instructions and notices
Increases difficulty to enroll/renew at every step.
Renewal Forms
Renewal forms were pre-populated with previously submitted information and only required the family to cross out inaccurate information and make corrections.
Renewal forms are blank so the entire application must be completed anew every 6 months, including income, vehicle information, and bank balances.
Increases difficulty to enroll/renew at every step.
Defining the "A ssets Test"
A family with a gross monthly income greater than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) must own $5000 or less in countable liquid assets and excess vehicle value combined to be eligible for CHIP.
CHIP is meant to assist working families that can't afford health insurance for their children. These restrictive policies -- put in place in 2003 -- punish families that attempt to put money away in a savings account, even if it's for their children's college tuition, for personal retirement, or to purchase a home.
Should a family that already owns a vehicle come into ownership of any additional vehicle over $4,650 -- even if it's given to them by a friend or inherited from a deceased relative -- that family would be kicked off the CHIP program.
· Liquid Assets:
o cash on hand
o cash value of checking and savings accounts
o money remaining from the sale of a homestead
o cash value of stocks, bonds and savings certificates
· Excess vehicle value calculated:
o Countable vehicles include any operable and licensed automobile, truck, motorcycle, SUV, van, boat or motor home (including campers and RVs).
o The value of the vehicle will be based on the Hearst Corp./NAR Division Black Book.
o The family can exempt the first $15,000 of the highest valued vehicle and $4650 of the value of each additional vehicle.
Fact Sheet: CHIP, Medicaid Budget Funds Left Unspent
Almost $400 million in unspent CHIP & Medicaid funds would have covered every Texas child that lost CHIP coverage since May 2002, and covered those that lost Medicaid coverage in FY 2006.
$394.9 Million Left Unspent in FY 2006 Medicaid and CHIP
$4.8 billion in state funds was appropriated for Medicaid in Senate Bill 1
$328.3 million in state funds appropriated for Goal B (Medicaid) for fiscal year 2006 was left unspent and has been carried forward into fiscal year 2007
$199.9 million was appropriated for CHIP Services in Senate Bill 1
$66.6 million in state funds appropriated for Goal C (CHIP Services) was left unspent and has been carried forward into fiscal year 2007
71,412 Fewer Children Enrolled in Medicaid During FY 2006
· September 2005 - 1,980,389 children enrolled
· September 2006 - 1,908,977 children enrolled
35,027 Fewer Children Enrolled in CHIP During FY 2006
September 2005 - 326,557 children enrolled
September 2006 - 291,530 children enrolled
State Dollars Left Unspent Could Have Paid for Health Care Coverage for Medicaid and CHIP Children that Were Kicked Off the Rolls
Number of children that lost CHIP coverage from May 2002 - Today 228,406
Average state dollars needed to cover a child on CHIP: x $450
Amount of state funds needed to cover all children that
have lost CHIP coverage since May 2002 ( #1) $102,782,700
Number of children that lost Medicaid coverage in FY 2006: 71,412
Estimated state dollars needed to cover a child on Medicaid: x $700
Amount of state funds needed to cover all children that
lost Medicaid coverage in FY 2006 ( #2) $49,988,400
Amount of unspent FY '006 state funds for Medicaid and CHIP: $394,000,000
Cost in state funds of restoring CHIP ( #1) - $102,782,700
Cost in state funds of restoring Medicaid ( #2): - $49,988,400
Total Amount of Unspent State Dollars,
after CHIP and Medicaid coverage is restored: $241,228,900
Source: HHSC Response to Inquiries made by the Office of State Representative Garnet Coleman
Fighting the Myth: The Truth About CHIP
Election season campaign announcements from Governor Perry and the Republican leadership cannot cover up three years and nine legislative sessions of neglect. Here's a sampling of lies and half-truths purported by Governor Perry and the Republican leadership:
Republican Myth
Truth About CHIP
CHIP is 100% fully funded at the state level.
CHIP is fully funded at the rate set by the Republican leadership in the 79th Regular Session. Since 2003, the Republican leadership has cut state funds for CHIP by over $50 million, and cut all general revenue funds by over $150 million.
We aren't losing federal funds, or any money, from CHIP or Medicaid.
$1 in net cuts in funding for Medicaid and CHIP results in1:
$3.66 in total health care funding losses
$13.18 in total expenditure losses
$4.80 in personal income losses
$6.92 in gross state product losses
$1.59 in increased insurance premiums
$1.81 in retail sales losses
$0.58 in local government cost increases
$1.52 in out-of-pocket and other private health care costs
New $3.5 million outreach shows commitment to CHIP
Prior to 2003, the state was spending $9.9 million on outreach to assist families that were enrolling and renewing for CHIP.
Hurricane Katrina evacuees have inflated the numbers
9,805 children that are Hurricane Katrina evacuees have enrolled in children's Medicaid (1% of total enrollment).2
316 children that are Hurricane Katrina evacuees have enrolled in CHIP (1% of total enrollment).3
1 Source: The Perryman Group. " The Perryman Report: Special Report. An Assessment of the Impact of the Health Care Sector on the Texas Economy, with Emphasis on the Situation Confronting Hospitals and the Effects of Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Funding Reductions." February, 2005.
2 Source: Health and Human Service Commission response to inquiries made by the Office of State Representative Garnet Coleman. October 16, 2006.
3 Source: Health and Human Service Commission response to inquiries made by the Office of State Representative Garnet Coleman. October 20, 2006.
This e-mail was not sent at state expense.
This CoolerEmail was delivered to you by State Representative Garnet Coleman. You can take your email address off State Representative Garnet Coleman's email list, or update your preferences and/or send comments to State Representative Garnet Coleman. If you request to be taken off State Representative Garnet Coleman's email list, State Representative Garnet Coleman will honor your request pursuant to CoolerEmail's permission-based email terms and conditions. Postal address: 1231 NW Hoyt, Suite 301, Portland, OR 97209 Powered by CoolerEmail
Monday, October 09, 2006
Does It Make Sense to You?
So temps are supposed to be "safe" for 2 more years, and regular status will most likely all have jobs in the "new system". They're saying some temps may end up keeping jobs. No roll-out for another year and when they do, it will be a different area....Round Rock area?
Yeah, lets f*** with another part of Texas.
Makes you wonder - if temps are not receiving evaluations, how do you choose which temp to keep and which to let go? Tenure alone shouldn't be what the choice is based on because we all know that's what they basically based the selection at HHSC on - and some of the employees kept were not as good as some that got RIF notices. Of course, they've rescinded those now and we're spending more money hiring temporary staff to hold the offices together. Anyone with this type of work experience knows that not just anyone can come in off of the street and do this job. It takes a certain type of personality and not everyone has it. Besides, as a "temp" and knowing that you were employed "at will", wouldn't you still be looking for a permanent job? I would!
So - back to square one. Too much work, not enough workers.
Hmmm...sounds like too many chiefs and not enough Indians......
HHSC and Accenture are just hiring people left and right and without adequate training and monitoring, letting them determnine eligibility for our elderly, disabled and poor. It doesn't seem to matter whether they do it accurately or not. Just get it done. We used to get QC Reports and errors were a major deal! Now - QC? What's that?
With what Hawkins and Co. have done, we're just desperate to keep a "live body" in the job now.
No more Enhanded Funding Bonuses from the Feds. Loss of matched Medicaid dollars. QC Liabilities. Financial penalties from the Feds (Anyone wonder why there's no talk about that yet? Gee - who's in charge over there?)
Sorry, I know I have rambled. But I'm tired. I'm tired of working all the time. I'm tired of my kids saying they don't get to see me anymore. I'm tired of not having a home life - missing my TV shows, missing my normal personal interactions. I'm tired of Hawkins, Accenture - TAA - Rick Perry, Craddick, the crooked majority, (still hating Wohlgemuth too).....
Just vote, people. Please.
Yeah, lets f*** with another part of Texas.
Makes you wonder - if temps are not receiving evaluations, how do you choose which temp to keep and which to let go? Tenure alone shouldn't be what the choice is based on because we all know that's what they basically based the selection at HHSC on - and some of the employees kept were not as good as some that got RIF notices. Of course, they've rescinded those now and we're spending more money hiring temporary staff to hold the offices together. Anyone with this type of work experience knows that not just anyone can come in off of the street and do this job. It takes a certain type of personality and not everyone has it. Besides, as a "temp" and knowing that you were employed "at will", wouldn't you still be looking for a permanent job? I would!
So - back to square one. Too much work, not enough workers.
Hmmm...sounds like too many chiefs and not enough Indians......
HHSC and Accenture are just hiring people left and right and without adequate training and monitoring, letting them determnine eligibility for our elderly, disabled and poor. It doesn't seem to matter whether they do it accurately or not. Just get it done. We used to get QC Reports and errors were a major deal! Now - QC? What's that?
With what Hawkins and Co. have done, we're just desperate to keep a "live body" in the job now.
No more Enhanded Funding Bonuses from the Feds. Loss of matched Medicaid dollars. QC Liabilities. Financial penalties from the Feds (Anyone wonder why there's no talk about that yet? Gee - who's in charge over there?)
Sorry, I know I have rambled. But I'm tired. I'm tired of working all the time. I'm tired of my kids saying they don't get to see me anymore. I'm tired of not having a home life - missing my TV shows, missing my normal personal interactions. I'm tired of Hawkins, Accenture - TAA - Rick Perry, Craddick, the crooked majority, (still hating Wohlgemuth too).....
Just vote, people. Please.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
IEE Roadshow
Subject: IEE Roadshow Schedule
Please review the IEE Roadshow Schedule - dates and times of the
meetings have been confirmed. If you have not provided your location
information, I would appreciate you doing so quickly. Deputy
Executive Commissioner Heiligenstein would like to post the schedule
on the OES website as soon as possible.
For those of you who have finalized information, thank you and I
apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you for your hard work and cooperation with this project,
Sheryl Norman
IEE ROADSHOW VISITS TO REGIONS - 2006
September 21st
2:00 pm
Region 05 Beaumont
Regional Headquarters, 285 Liberty Street, 20th
September 26th
2:00 pm
Region 04 Tyler
Quality Inn, 2843 Loop 323 WNW, Tyler (903) 597-1301
October 4th
2:00 pm
Region 11 Corpus Christi
Del Mar College, Harvin Student Center, Retama Room (2nd Floor) 101 Baldwin Blvd., Corpus Christi (361-698-1281)
October 6th
2:00 pm
Region 01 Lubbock
Quality Hotel and Conference Center, 2843 NW Loop 323, Lubbock
October 11th
10:00 am
Region 11 Laredo
Texas A&M International University, Bullock Hall Auditorium BH-101, 5201 University Blvd., Laredo (956-326-2932) *** still pending finalization **
October 12th
9:00 am
Region 11 Harlingen
Regional Academic Health Center , Rotunda Auditorium, 2102 Treasure Hills Blvd., Harlingen (956-365-8760)
October 26th
10:00 am
2:00 pm
Region 03 Dallas
November 2nd
10:00 am
Region 07 Austin
November 8th
2:00 pm
Region 08 Midland/Abeline
November 10th
2:00 pm
Region 10 El Paso
November 16th
10:00 am
2:00 pm
Region 08 San Antonio
???
10:00 am
2:00 pm
Region 06 Houston
Please review the IEE Roadshow Schedule - dates and times of the
meetings have been confirmed. If you have not provided your location
information, I would appreciate you doing so quickly. Deputy
Executive Commissioner Heiligenstein would like to post the schedule
on the OES website as soon as possible.
For those of you who have finalized information, thank you and I
apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you for your hard work and cooperation with this project,
Sheryl Norman
IEE ROADSHOW VISITS TO REGIONS - 2006
September 21st
2:00 pm
Region 05 Beaumont
Regional Headquarters, 285 Liberty Street, 20th
September 26th
2:00 pm
Region 04 Tyler
Quality Inn, 2843 Loop 323 WNW, Tyler (903) 597-1301
October 4th
2:00 pm
Region 11 Corpus Christi
Del Mar College, Harvin Student Center, Retama Room (2nd Floor) 101 Baldwin Blvd., Corpus Christi (361-698-1281)
October 6th
2:00 pm
Region 01 Lubbock
Quality Hotel and Conference Center, 2843 NW Loop 323, Lubbock
October 11th
10:00 am
Region 11 Laredo
Texas A&M International University, Bullock Hall Auditorium BH-101, 5201 University Blvd., Laredo (956-326-2932) *** still pending finalization **
October 12th
9:00 am
Region 11 Harlingen
Regional Academic Health Center , Rotunda Auditorium, 2102 Treasure Hills Blvd., Harlingen (956-365-8760)
October 26th
10:00 am
2:00 pm
Region 03 Dallas
November 2nd
10:00 am
Region 07 Austin
November 8th
2:00 pm
Region 08 Midland/Abeline
November 10th
2:00 pm
Region 10 El Paso
November 16th
10:00 am
2:00 pm
Region 08 San Antonio
???
10:00 am
2:00 pm
Region 06 Houston
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
HHSC IEE Roadshow
Anybody remember that last time Heilengenstein and crew made the rounds of the State trying to "pump" us up over what a grand thing TIERS and this privatization thing is? Well - here she goes again. (If you haven't already seen the email, let me know and I can post it).
Now they're calling it an "IEE Roadshow". Roadshow? What fool came up with that name? The first thing I thought about was a circus. If you were around last time, it certainly was no circus, just a bunch of baloney. There were several people who she completely ignored because she knew she wasn't able to answer their questions! And the harder the questions got, the fewer answers we got. Those that asked realistic questions soon stopped getting called on.
Rumor has it that some people have been mandated to attend these "roadshows" - They're afraid they can't fill the audiences so they're manipulating it instead. Can you even imagine? Myself, I find it pitiful! Besides, what else are they going to tell us other than the same old **** we keep hearing - while we slowly kill ourselves just trying to get the job done.
Do you ever wonder why we do this anymore? Is it worth it to give up our lives to serve some people whe couldn't give a shit if we dropped dead tomorrow as long as their case gets done? Or those who make threats on our lives while we work our asses off just trying to keep our heads above water?
Mind you, we do have alot of clients who are very understanding and so sympathetic and patient, even when they are direly in need. I guess the good at least weighs up with the bad. But again, is it worth killing ourselves for?
Well, that is my vent for the night.
HHSCSurvivalist
Now they're calling it an "IEE Roadshow". Roadshow? What fool came up with that name? The first thing I thought about was a circus. If you were around last time, it certainly was no circus, just a bunch of baloney. There were several people who she completely ignored because she knew she wasn't able to answer their questions! And the harder the questions got, the fewer answers we got. Those that asked realistic questions soon stopped getting called on.
Rumor has it that some people have been mandated to attend these "roadshows" - They're afraid they can't fill the audiences so they're manipulating it instead. Can you even imagine? Myself, I find it pitiful! Besides, what else are they going to tell us other than the same old **** we keep hearing - while we slowly kill ourselves just trying to get the job done.
Do you ever wonder why we do this anymore? Is it worth it to give up our lives to serve some people whe couldn't give a shit if we dropped dead tomorrow as long as their case gets done? Or those who make threats on our lives while we work our asses off just trying to keep our heads above water?
Mind you, we do have alot of clients who are very understanding and so sympathetic and patient, even when they are direly in need. I guess the good at least weighs up with the bad. But again, is it worth killing ourselves for?
Well, that is my vent for the night.
HHSCSurvivalist
Sunday, August 27, 2006
One day in heaven, the Lord decided He would visit the earth and takea stroll. Walking down the road, He encountered a woman who was crying.
The Lord asked the woman, "Why are you crying, my daughter"? Thewoman said she was blind and had never seen a sunset. The Lord touched the woman and she could see and she was happy.
As the Lord walked further, He met another woman crying and asked,"Why are you crying, my daughter"? The woman was born a cripple and had never been able to walk. The Lord touched her and she could walk and she was extremely happy.
Further down the road, the Lord met another woman who was crying andasked, "Why are you crying, my daughter"?
The woman said, "Lord, I work for the state.".............and the Lord sat down andcried with her.
Perry and foes have different views on health care
Perry's record under scrutiny in election year
2006 ELECTIONS: HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
By Corrie MacLaggan
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFFSaturday, August 26, 2006
Here's Gov. Rick Perry's perspective: Texas children are safer today than a year ago, thanks to Child Protective Services reforms; more children are covered by public health insurance than in 1999; and the state is giving low-income Texans more ways to apply for help while saving taxpayers money.
Here's the reality, according to Perry's three main gubernatorial challengers: the privatization of public assistance enrollment is a nightmare; children are being recklessly dropped from public insurance programs; and the Child Protective Services reforms didn't go far enough.
Those are the vastly different ways Perry, a Republican, and his chief opponents — Democrat Chris Bell and independents Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Kinky Friedman — view the state on key issues related to Texas' social safety net.
In a state with the nation's lowest percentage of insured residents, these issues are crucial not only because they involve the most vulnerable Texans — the elderly, the poor, people with disabilities, abused children — but also because spending on health and human services represents about a third of all state spending, nearly $25 billion per year.
Critics have blamed Perry-backed policy changes from 2003 and a new privatization plan for a decline in enrollment in the state's Children's Health Insurance Program and children's Medicaid. Those programs provide low-cost or free health coverage for children in low- and moderate-income families.
CHIP enrollment was about 500,000 in September 2003, when the state began scaling back some benefits, requiring clients to re-enroll more often and looking at the value of their cars and other assets to determine eligibility. Enrollment was just less than 300,000 this month.
"There's a common misperception that changes in 2003 caused a decline in the number of children covered by the state. It's just not true," said Stephanie Goodman, of the Health and Human Services Commission. "While CHIP enrollment did decline, increases in children's Medicaid more than offset that decline. In fact, from 1999 to 2005 we doubled the number of children covered by the state."
This year, however, the number of children on both insurance programs dropped after the controversial privatization plan began and the state faced staffing shortages.
Bell said that "the state can try to misrepresent the figures as much as they want, but . . . we have a crisis in the state when it comes to the uninsured."
The Children's Defense Fund estimates that of the 1.4 million uninsured children in Texas, more than 700,000 are eligible for state insurance. A family of four can earn up to $40,000 and qualify for the insurance.
Strayhorn said: "It's so disingenuous for anyone to say that everyone eligible is on."
Perry spokesman Eric Bearse said that declining enrollment in public health insurance programs "is a positive thing that reflects a growing economy." He said 4,000 people were removed from the CHIP program last month because their income was too high.
"We do not think that we can justify to taxpayers providing a subsidized health insurance benefit for families that may be driving expensive cars like Lexuses and Escalades," Bearse said.
Friedman, who says health and human services issues have been "swept under the rug, ignored, slashed and burned" in Texas, soon plans to unveil details about a plan to tax insurance companies, hospitals and medical procedures to pay for health care available on a sliding fee scale to Texans who don't have access to affordable health insurance.
Contractor criticized
The privatization plan that's getting election-year scrutiny involves the state's more than $800 million, five-year contract with a private group to handle a call-in enrollment system for food stamps, Medicaid and other public assistance programs.
The group — Texas Access Alliance, anchored by Accenture LLP — hit snags in its call center pilot program that began in January in Travis and Hays counties. Some of the 3 million Texans on public assistance have been inexplicably denied benefits, received services late or faced other problems. Officials have indefinitely stalled the program's statewide rollout.
Bell, painting the privatization as a plan envisioned by Strayhorn and approved by Perry, says he'd return the enrollment tasks to the state. "The contract has been a disaster," he said.
But Strayhorn, who as comptroller is investigating the contract, said her 2003 recommendation that the state use call centers referred only to CHIP and children's Medicaid eligibility — not all programs. She says the call centers are a "perfect storm" of "wasted tax dollars, reduced access to services and profiteering at the expense of Texas taxpayers."
The plan is supposed to save the state $646 million over five years.
Perry's office acknowledged that savings have not been achieved but is confidentthey will be. "The problems are all solvable," said Nora Cox, Perry's assistant director for budget, planning and policy.
Libertarian gubernatorial candidate James Werner has called for "a stronger dose of accountability" but said recent problems show the state should be moving toward privatization. "By contracting these services, we have shone the light of day on what would have otherwise been an obscure state activity."
Foster care reforms
Gubernatorial candidates have also been debating the progress of Child Protective Services reforms mandated by the Legislature in 2005 after a series of deaths of children in dangerous situations known to state workers.
Since September, the agency has hired more than 2,000 workers and investigators' average daily caseloads have dropped from 47 in January 2005 to 35.9 in May, the agency said.
Some gubernatorial challengers say that's not enough. Strayhorn points to a disproportionate increase of rapes and deaths in the foster care system — 48 in 2005, compared with 30 in 2003 — to show the system "needs to be turned upside down." There were 32,000 children in the system last year.
Meanwhile, Bell points to then-Gov. George W. Bush's declaration that Child Protective Services was in crisis in 1998, when the average caseload was 24. "How could it be a crisis at 20-something when Bush was governor and some sort of solution when it's almost 40?" Bell said.
But Perry's camp said the state has changed the way it measures caseloads. "The agency has gone from being indicted by a grand jury to being a model in the nation of how to do child welfare," Cox said. "That's tremendous, and it's something we're tremendously proud of."
cmaclaggan@statesman.com; 445-3548
Note from Blogger:
2006 ELECTIONS: HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
By Corrie MacLaggan
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFFSaturday, August 26, 2006
Here's Gov. Rick Perry's perspective: Texas children are safer today than a year ago, thanks to Child Protective Services reforms; more children are covered by public health insurance than in 1999; and the state is giving low-income Texans more ways to apply for help while saving taxpayers money.
Here's the reality, according to Perry's three main gubernatorial challengers: the privatization of public assistance enrollment is a nightmare; children are being recklessly dropped from public insurance programs; and the Child Protective Services reforms didn't go far enough.
Those are the vastly different ways Perry, a Republican, and his chief opponents — Democrat Chris Bell and independents Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Kinky Friedman — view the state on key issues related to Texas' social safety net.
In a state with the nation's lowest percentage of insured residents, these issues are crucial not only because they involve the most vulnerable Texans — the elderly, the poor, people with disabilities, abused children — but also because spending on health and human services represents about a third of all state spending, nearly $25 billion per year.
Critics have blamed Perry-backed policy changes from 2003 and a new privatization plan for a decline in enrollment in the state's Children's Health Insurance Program and children's Medicaid. Those programs provide low-cost or free health coverage for children in low- and moderate-income families.
CHIP enrollment was about 500,000 in September 2003, when the state began scaling back some benefits, requiring clients to re-enroll more often and looking at the value of their cars and other assets to determine eligibility. Enrollment was just less than 300,000 this month.
"There's a common misperception that changes in 2003 caused a decline in the number of children covered by the state. It's just not true," said Stephanie Goodman, of the Health and Human Services Commission. "While CHIP enrollment did decline, increases in children's Medicaid more than offset that decline. In fact, from 1999 to 2005 we doubled the number of children covered by the state."
This year, however, the number of children on both insurance programs dropped after the controversial privatization plan began and the state faced staffing shortages.
Bell said that "the state can try to misrepresent the figures as much as they want, but . . . we have a crisis in the state when it comes to the uninsured."
The Children's Defense Fund estimates that of the 1.4 million uninsured children in Texas, more than 700,000 are eligible for state insurance. A family of four can earn up to $40,000 and qualify for the insurance.
Strayhorn said: "It's so disingenuous for anyone to say that everyone eligible is on."
Perry spokesman Eric Bearse said that declining enrollment in public health insurance programs "is a positive thing that reflects a growing economy." He said 4,000 people were removed from the CHIP program last month because their income was too high.
"We do not think that we can justify to taxpayers providing a subsidized health insurance benefit for families that may be driving expensive cars like Lexuses and Escalades," Bearse said.
Friedman, who says health and human services issues have been "swept under the rug, ignored, slashed and burned" in Texas, soon plans to unveil details about a plan to tax insurance companies, hospitals and medical procedures to pay for health care available on a sliding fee scale to Texans who don't have access to affordable health insurance.
Contractor criticized
The privatization plan that's getting election-year scrutiny involves the state's more than $800 million, five-year contract with a private group to handle a call-in enrollment system for food stamps, Medicaid and other public assistance programs.
The group — Texas Access Alliance, anchored by Accenture LLP — hit snags in its call center pilot program that began in January in Travis and Hays counties. Some of the 3 million Texans on public assistance have been inexplicably denied benefits, received services late or faced other problems. Officials have indefinitely stalled the program's statewide rollout.
Bell, painting the privatization as a plan envisioned by Strayhorn and approved by Perry, says he'd return the enrollment tasks to the state. "The contract has been a disaster," he said.
But Strayhorn, who as comptroller is investigating the contract, said her 2003 recommendation that the state use call centers referred only to CHIP and children's Medicaid eligibility — not all programs. She says the call centers are a "perfect storm" of "wasted tax dollars, reduced access to services and profiteering at the expense of Texas taxpayers."
The plan is supposed to save the state $646 million over five years.
Perry's office acknowledged that savings have not been achieved but is confidentthey will be. "The problems are all solvable," said Nora Cox, Perry's assistant director for budget, planning and policy.
Libertarian gubernatorial candidate James Werner has called for "a stronger dose of accountability" but said recent problems show the state should be moving toward privatization. "By contracting these services, we have shone the light of day on what would have otherwise been an obscure state activity."
Foster care reforms
Gubernatorial candidates have also been debating the progress of Child Protective Services reforms mandated by the Legislature in 2005 after a series of deaths of children in dangerous situations known to state workers.
Since September, the agency has hired more than 2,000 workers and investigators' average daily caseloads have dropped from 47 in January 2005 to 35.9 in May, the agency said.
Some gubernatorial challengers say that's not enough. Strayhorn points to a disproportionate increase of rapes and deaths in the foster care system — 48 in 2005, compared with 30 in 2003 — to show the system "needs to be turned upside down." There were 32,000 children in the system last year.
Meanwhile, Bell points to then-Gov. George W. Bush's declaration that Child Protective Services was in crisis in 1998, when the average caseload was 24. "How could it be a crisis at 20-something when Bush was governor and some sort of solution when it's almost 40?" Bell said.
But Perry's camp said the state has changed the way it measures caseloads. "The agency has gone from being indicted by a grand jury to being a model in the nation of how to do child welfare," Cox said. "That's tremendous, and it's something we're tremendously proud of."
cmaclaggan@statesman.com; 445-3548
Note from Blogger:
Geez, isn't this what we have been trying to tell you, and them, for YEARS now? You know, I had imagined an increase in the crime rate, but I guess it was just too horrible for me to think about the increase in the children who were hurt.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Looking for a guest blogger....
As you may already know from the time between my postings, I do not have time anymore! I am looking for a guest blogger to post to this site. If interested, please contact me via hhscsurvivalist@yahoo.com.
Looking for serious activists! I need help!
Looking for serious activists! I need help!
Celia Hagert: Want welfare? Don't count on Texas' new, inadequately staffed system for help
08:17 AM CDT on Thursday, August 3, 2006
Most of us have never had to think about how families in need sign up for public help such as health care and food stamps. Right now, however, an important debate is brewing in the Texas Capitol over the question: How should we sign up people for help?
Since the state's new system for determining eligibility was launched six months ago, more than 100,000 kids have lost their health insurance and the state has left thousands of families without food.
Two years ago, the Legislature told the Health and Human Services Commission to find a way to deliver help with less money. Lured by the private sector's promise of savings, the commission signed a five-year, $899 million contract with the Texas Access Alliance, a consortium of private companies anchored by Accenture LLP.
Under the contract, the private sector promised to modernize the system by using call centers and the Internet. The state told 2,000 of its employees they were losing their jobs and launched the new system in Travis and Hays counties.
The commission claimed that a modernized system run by private companies would reduce workload for staff and improve services to clients. Clients would benefit from state-of-the-art technology, and taxpayers would save hundreds of millions of dollars. This sounds good in theory, but the reality has been a disaster.
Public assistance has become harder to get, and claimed savings never materialized. In May, the state postponed extending the new system and begged a thousand state workers to stay on the job.
We certainly shouldn't go forward with the plan, but we probably shouldn't go back. We need a different direction altogether.
It turns out that signing up for public assistance is not like buying movie tickets on Fandango.
For many reasons, including a desire to hold down costs, the state has a complicated set of rules
about who is entitled to what. It also must verify eligibility.
No one opposes the vision of a state-of-the-art system that increases access to services while saving money. Both are worthy goals. But the state erroneously assumed that poorly trained, low-wage workers could do the jobs of highly trained, higher-wage state employees. In fact, the savings promised by the plan's backers came not from more efficient ways to help clients, but by cutting staff and paying less.
The state's old way of doing things also meant running this complicated system with too few people. Despite growing numbers of Texans in need, the Legislature cut eligibility staff by 40 percent between 1997 and 2004. This doubled workload and compromised services. Disruptions in benefits were common. No one was satisfied with the old way of doing things, which looks good only by comparison.
Whether you get help now might just as well be determined by rolling dice. It is morally reckless to gamble with the well-being of the 4 million Texans who depend on public services – mostly children, the elderly and people with disabilities.
No matter how the state divides duties between the public and private sectors, it needs enough trained staff. As citizens who want to ensure that those who need help get help, we have to be willing to pay for it.
Celia Hagert is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin. Her e-mail address is hagert @cppp.org
Most of us have never had to think about how families in need sign up for public help such as health care and food stamps. Right now, however, an important debate is brewing in the Texas Capitol over the question: How should we sign up people for help?
Since the state's new system for determining eligibility was launched six months ago, more than 100,000 kids have lost their health insurance and the state has left thousands of families without food.
Two years ago, the Legislature told the Health and Human Services Commission to find a way to deliver help with less money. Lured by the private sector's promise of savings, the commission signed a five-year, $899 million contract with the Texas Access Alliance, a consortium of private companies anchored by Accenture LLP.
Under the contract, the private sector promised to modernize the system by using call centers and the Internet. The state told 2,000 of its employees they were losing their jobs and launched the new system in Travis and Hays counties.
The commission claimed that a modernized system run by private companies would reduce workload for staff and improve services to clients. Clients would benefit from state-of-the-art technology, and taxpayers would save hundreds of millions of dollars. This sounds good in theory, but the reality has been a disaster.
Public assistance has become harder to get, and claimed savings never materialized. In May, the state postponed extending the new system and begged a thousand state workers to stay on the job.
We certainly shouldn't go forward with the plan, but we probably shouldn't go back. We need a different direction altogether.
It turns out that signing up for public assistance is not like buying movie tickets on Fandango.
For many reasons, including a desire to hold down costs, the state has a complicated set of rules
about who is entitled to what. It also must verify eligibility.
No one opposes the vision of a state-of-the-art system that increases access to services while saving money. Both are worthy goals. But the state erroneously assumed that poorly trained, low-wage workers could do the jobs of highly trained, higher-wage state employees. In fact, the savings promised by the plan's backers came not from more efficient ways to help clients, but by cutting staff and paying less.
The state's old way of doing things also meant running this complicated system with too few people. Despite growing numbers of Texans in need, the Legislature cut eligibility staff by 40 percent between 1997 and 2004. This doubled workload and compromised services. Disruptions in benefits were common. No one was satisfied with the old way of doing things, which looks good only by comparison.
Whether you get help now might just as well be determined by rolling dice. It is morally reckless to gamble with the well-being of the 4 million Texans who depend on public services – mostly children, the elderly and people with disabilities.
No matter how the state divides duties between the public and private sectors, it needs enough trained staff. As citizens who want to ensure that those who need help get help, we have to be willing to pay for it.
Celia Hagert is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin. Her e-mail address is hagert @cppp.org
States Stumble Privatizing Social Services
Saturday, August 05, 2006
By Christine Vestal -
It sounds like a good idea: Replace state employees with a high-tech contractor to more efficiently screen thousands of applications for state support, and save taxpayers millions.
- That's what Texas and Indiana policy-makers thought. But early results of a privately run social services project in Texas and troubles with the bidding process in Indiana have caused both states to put their bold privatization plans on hold. Last year, Texas chose Bermuda-based high-tech consulting firm Accenture to run the entire eligibility process for Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), long-term care and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In January, the state launched a pilot privatization program in Travis and Hayes counties near Austin.The plan was to expand it county-by-county, with rollout completed by December 2006. But computer glitches and procedural problems cropped up immediately.
Some 27,000 kids in the pilot program inadvertently were dropped from health insurance coverage, and poor, elderly and handicapped applicants routinely were put on hold for more than 20 minutes, with more than half of all callers hanging up. Thousands waited longer than federal rules permit to find out whether they qualified for urgently needed state assistance, according to state officials.
And in a highly publicized gaffe, Accenture employees mistakenly faxed more than a hundred long-term care applications containing Social Security numbers and sensitive medical information to a Seattle warehouse.
Texas officials are optimistic they can correct the problems and eventually expand the project. But for now, expansion is off indefinitely.
"We recognize that modernizing a system of this size and complexity is never easy," Texas Health & Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins said. "But we remain focused on implementing a system that finally allows Texans to choose how they want to apply for services, is built on modern technology and makes the most of limited state resources.
"The pilot program will continue, and most problems already have been corrected, says agency spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman. The 27,000 kids scheduled to lose CHIP coverage were reinstated before they lost service, telephone wait times have been cut to less than two minutes and state workers have taken over processing new applications to allow Accenture to catch up on its backlog, she said.
The state will cut Accenture's contract fee by approximately $50 million because of work not completed between January and June, Goodman said.
Meanwhile in Indiana, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) put the brakes on his state's search for a social services contractor amid charges of favoritism.
Daniels took over decision-making authority for a proposed 10-year, $1 billion contract last month to quell accusations of preferential treatment by the state's Health and Human Services chief, a former employee of Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Systems, one of the bidding companies.
Indiana state employees complain that Daniels's call for privatization jeopardizes their futures, despite his promise that no state jobs will be eliminated. And advocates for the poor say the secret bidding process, initiated by executive order, leaves no opportunity for public comment and undermines public accountability.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), up for re-election this year, has heard similar complaints.
Independent gubernatorial candidate and state comptroller Carol Keeton Strayhorn has called for a probe of Texas' privatization contract, and Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Chris Bell has joined a chorus of critics demanding a return to public welfare screening.
Since 1995, when the federal government revamped most welfare programs, states have been free to hire private firms to administer social service block grants and entitlement programs as a cost-cutting measure. But until now, states have given businesses only a limited role, such as providing debit cards for food stamps and developing computer systems to track welfare applications.
Advocates for the poor worry that putting too much responsibility in the hands of profit-motivated companies could endanger the vulnerable people the programs are intended to help.
Federal rules require state employees to make final decisions for some entitlement programs, but letting a private contractor make the initial eligibility cut could have a profound effect on welfare outcomes, they say.
Supporters of privatization argue that antiquated state eligibility systems no longer are cost-effective, and say improvements best can be accomplished by a high-tech, profit-motivated contractor with incentives to operate efficiently.
Texas policy-makers say their plan not only will save taxpayer dollars but modernize the social services eligibility process, allowing people to apply for support over the Internet, by fax, through call centers and at self-serve kiosks. Currently social services applicants must travel to their local social service offices during business hours and wait in line to talk to a caseworker.
Daniels, who left his post as Bush's top budget advisor to run for governor in 2003, grabbed headlines this year when he privatized an Indiana toll road, granting a 75-year lease to a foreign consortium for $3.8 billion.
Most agree that the state welfare eligibility process - with long lines, limited office hours and error rates in the 25 percent rage -- needs improvement. But advocates for the poor argue that the problems result from underfunding and understaffing, not lack of expertise.
"The only people with experience in the complex and sensitive work of determining welfare eligibility are state workers. Why would you hire a high-tech company to do that?" asks Stacey Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an advocacy group for the poor.
Other privatization critics argue that transferring public services to private companies has been plagued by quality-of-service problems for the last two decades. The concept makes sense and state policy-makers always are eager to save money, but in practice, privatization has failed more than it has succeeded, says Mildred Warner, a privatization expert at Cornell University.
In an analysis of privatization of state and local services over the last 20 years, Warner concluded that the majority of projects failed because of deteriorating quality of service. And in more than half the cases, the projects did not save taxpayer dollars, she said.
Send your comments on this story to
letters@stateline.orgletters at stateline dot org . Selected reader feedback will be posted in the Letters to the Editor section. Source: Contact Christine Vestal at
cvestal@stateline.orgcvestal at stateline dot org - © 2006 stateline.org
By Christine Vestal -
It sounds like a good idea: Replace state employees with a high-tech contractor to more efficiently screen thousands of applications for state support, and save taxpayers millions.
- That's what Texas and Indiana policy-makers thought. But early results of a privately run social services project in Texas and troubles with the bidding process in Indiana have caused both states to put their bold privatization plans on hold. Last year, Texas chose Bermuda-based high-tech consulting firm Accenture to run the entire eligibility process for Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), long-term care and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In January, the state launched a pilot privatization program in Travis and Hayes counties near Austin.The plan was to expand it county-by-county, with rollout completed by December 2006. But computer glitches and procedural problems cropped up immediately.
Some 27,000 kids in the pilot program inadvertently were dropped from health insurance coverage, and poor, elderly and handicapped applicants routinely were put on hold for more than 20 minutes, with more than half of all callers hanging up. Thousands waited longer than federal rules permit to find out whether they qualified for urgently needed state assistance, according to state officials.
And in a highly publicized gaffe, Accenture employees mistakenly faxed more than a hundred long-term care applications containing Social Security numbers and sensitive medical information to a Seattle warehouse.
Texas officials are optimistic they can correct the problems and eventually expand the project. But for now, expansion is off indefinitely.
"We recognize that modernizing a system of this size and complexity is never easy," Texas Health & Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins said. "But we remain focused on implementing a system that finally allows Texans to choose how they want to apply for services, is built on modern technology and makes the most of limited state resources.
"The pilot program will continue, and most problems already have been corrected, says agency spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman. The 27,000 kids scheduled to lose CHIP coverage were reinstated before they lost service, telephone wait times have been cut to less than two minutes and state workers have taken over processing new applications to allow Accenture to catch up on its backlog, she said.
The state will cut Accenture's contract fee by approximately $50 million because of work not completed between January and June, Goodman said.
Meanwhile in Indiana, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) put the brakes on his state's search for a social services contractor amid charges of favoritism.
Daniels took over decision-making authority for a proposed 10-year, $1 billion contract last month to quell accusations of preferential treatment by the state's Health and Human Services chief, a former employee of Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Systems, one of the bidding companies.
Indiana state employees complain that Daniels's call for privatization jeopardizes their futures, despite his promise that no state jobs will be eliminated. And advocates for the poor say the secret bidding process, initiated by executive order, leaves no opportunity for public comment and undermines public accountability.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), up for re-election this year, has heard similar complaints.
Independent gubernatorial candidate and state comptroller Carol Keeton Strayhorn has called for a probe of Texas' privatization contract, and Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Chris Bell has joined a chorus of critics demanding a return to public welfare screening.
Since 1995, when the federal government revamped most welfare programs, states have been free to hire private firms to administer social service block grants and entitlement programs as a cost-cutting measure. But until now, states have given businesses only a limited role, such as providing debit cards for food stamps and developing computer systems to track welfare applications.
Advocates for the poor worry that putting too much responsibility in the hands of profit-motivated companies could endanger the vulnerable people the programs are intended to help.
Federal rules require state employees to make final decisions for some entitlement programs, but letting a private contractor make the initial eligibility cut could have a profound effect on welfare outcomes, they say.
Supporters of privatization argue that antiquated state eligibility systems no longer are cost-effective, and say improvements best can be accomplished by a high-tech, profit-motivated contractor with incentives to operate efficiently.
Texas policy-makers say their plan not only will save taxpayer dollars but modernize the social services eligibility process, allowing people to apply for support over the Internet, by fax, through call centers and at self-serve kiosks. Currently social services applicants must travel to their local social service offices during business hours and wait in line to talk to a caseworker.
Daniels, who left his post as Bush's top budget advisor to run for governor in 2003, grabbed headlines this year when he privatized an Indiana toll road, granting a 75-year lease to a foreign consortium for $3.8 billion.
Most agree that the state welfare eligibility process - with long lines, limited office hours and error rates in the 25 percent rage -- needs improvement. But advocates for the poor argue that the problems result from underfunding and understaffing, not lack of expertise.
"The only people with experience in the complex and sensitive work of determining welfare eligibility are state workers. Why would you hire a high-tech company to do that?" asks Stacey Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an advocacy group for the poor.
Other privatization critics argue that transferring public services to private companies has been plagued by quality-of-service problems for the last two decades. The concept makes sense and state policy-makers always are eager to save money, but in practice, privatization has failed more than it has succeeded, says Mildred Warner, a privatization expert at Cornell University.
In an analysis of privatization of state and local services over the last 20 years, Warner concluded that the majority of projects failed because of deteriorating quality of service. And in more than half the cases, the projects did not save taxpayer dollars, she said.
Send your comments on this story to
letters@stateline.orgletters at stateline dot org . Selected reader feedback will be posted in the Letters to the Editor section. Source: Contact Christine Vestal at
cvestal@stateline.orgcvestal at stateline dot org - © 2006 stateline.org
Good, tenured, caseworkers are now in tears!
Our workers, with years of experience and great stats, are now in tears over their jobs! They can no longer function with the stress at the offices caused by this TIERS boondoggle!
This month, supervisors were given the directive to 'do something about the leadtime' which was running at 28 days in some of the offices, more than 30 in others. Lead time is the time between when the application is actually received and the date we can get them scheduled. Not scheduled timely? Delinquent.
Hello? Is anyone home? Why, do they suppose the lead time is so high? Could it be because we are SHORT STAFFED?! So, the supervisors in one (possibly more) office decided that each worker- temps included - would get a stack of 40 1010's- some reviews, some pure apps- they get to figure out how and when those will get seen- whether it be on their workday- or after hours, or in between regular appts.....what? How the hell does one do that, when they are already overloaded?
So, because they did that- the 'lead time' looks like it's being 'taken care of'. That's just "fudging" the numbers, something the heads at HHSC seem to be very good at. But hey! Problem solved, right?
Workers are now giving up their family and personal time, just to work extra hours, weekends included, so they can try to stay on top of their jobs. NOT WORKING! There's still too much work to be done (DAMN YOU, TAA, ACCENTURE AND HHSC!)
This is occurring Statewide and is taking a serious toll....we have workers out on sick leave all the time, workers in tears when it just gets to be too much (which is everyday), workers who have always been dedicated to their jobs are now wanting to leave. After all, when you compare your health to the job...what do you think is more important!
This month, supervisors were given the directive to 'do something about the leadtime' which was running at 28 days in some of the offices, more than 30 in others. Lead time is the time between when the application is actually received and the date we can get them scheduled. Not scheduled timely? Delinquent.
Hello? Is anyone home? Why, do they suppose the lead time is so high? Could it be because we are SHORT STAFFED?! So, the supervisors in one (possibly more) office decided that each worker- temps included - would get a stack of 40 1010's- some reviews, some pure apps- they get to figure out how and when those will get seen- whether it be on their workday- or after hours, or in between regular appts.....what? How the hell does one do that, when they are already overloaded?
So, because they did that- the 'lead time' looks like it's being 'taken care of'. That's just "fudging" the numbers, something the heads at HHSC seem to be very good at. But hey! Problem solved, right?
Workers are now giving up their family and personal time, just to work extra hours, weekends included, so they can try to stay on top of their jobs. NOT WORKING! There's still too much work to be done (DAMN YOU, TAA, ACCENTURE AND HHSC!)
This is occurring Statewide and is taking a serious toll....we have workers out on sick leave all the time, workers in tears when it just gets to be too much (which is everyday), workers who have always been dedicated to their jobs are now wanting to leave. After all, when you compare your health to the job...what do you think is more important!
Worker tells of training problems with state contractor
Accenture group failed to give her knowledge she needed, she claims
By Corrie MacLaggan
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFFFriday, August 11, 2006
When Amanda Morris started working at a private office that enrolls Texans in public assistance, she was trained to enter information into a computer about people who want to apply for benefits.
But she immediately found that most cases didn't involve signups. Clients needed to renew benefits, make changes to their accounts or update their address.
And she didn't know how to do that.
"I trained for three weeks and was put onto the floor with about 2 percent knowledge of how to do my job," said Morris, 21, who works for a temp agency and has been on assignment since March with the San Antonio office of state contractor Texas Access Alliance.
Problems with worker training are one of the reasons the state has indefinitely delayed statewide rollout of that contractor's new call-in system to enroll Texans in food stamps, Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Morris' account sheds more light on the problems. A former Texas Access Alliance employee in San Antonio, who asked that her name not be used because it might affect her current job, said Morris' story matches her experience.
The state is paying more than $800 million over five years to the Texas Access Alliance, a consortium of private companies led by Accenture LLP, for the system, which has been in a pilot stage in Travis and Hays counties since January. The privatization was intended to save the state money.
Since the contractor took over, benefits recipients have reported getting inexplicably dropped from public assistance, talking to customer service representatives who couldn't answer their questions and being asked for information they'd already provided.
In response, the private group has retrained its call center employees and overhauled training for new hires, spokeswoman Mindy Brown said this week. Texas Access Alliance "has turned a major corner," she said.
"Our training is intensive and depends on each employee's role," Brown said. "If an employee feels they need additional training to do their job correctly, all they need to do is to speak with their supervisor and additional instruction can be arranged."
Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, said the reports of improved quality is a positive sign but that the state has not yet evaluated that. "We'll measure the success of the training by how well the call-center representatives
respond to client questions and concerns," she said.
Morris, for one, said training sessions she's attended recently were just as ineffective as the original.
She admits she's bitter about her job: her boyfriend was one of several dozen people laid off from the San Antonio office earlier this summer, and she wishes she earned more than her $12-per-hour salary. But she says that as a former recipient of food stamps and Medicaid, she's concerned about the experiences of the 3 million Texans who receive public assistance.
"You have no idea how (messed) up this is getting," said Morris, who works with applications and renewals but does not take calls. "There's misorganization regarding documents. Information gets linked incorrectly or lost altogether."
For example, Morris said she recently found that a public assistance recipient had submitted an address change. But an employee flagged the file to indicate a change of state residency, instead. And another employee who handled the case didn't catch the error. So the family was sent a letter asking about their Texas residency, Morris said.
Morris attributes problems like this to a lack of training and co-workers who are "purposely lazy." In May, Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Albert Hawkins announced that no new applications will be processed in the privately run San Antonio call center until the contractor improves.
Alton Martin, CEO of Customer Operations Performance Center, Inc., a New York-based call-center consultant, said the training problems aren't surprising.
When he asks call-center representatives at various sites whether they felt ready for their job, "about half the time they'll say training was really bad or nonexistent or not appropriate to the task."
Martin, whose company is not working with the Texas contract but has worked with Accenture on other projects, said that call center quality issues often stem from the contract.
"Maybe the state wasn't rigorous enough," said Martin, who works in Austin. "Lots of times people want to throw the vendor under the bus . . . (But) if you want a fast car, ask for a fast car."
Goodman, though, said the state has set a high bar and is doing its own quality checks.
The private call centers — located in San Antonio, Austin, Midland and Athens — are expected to replace some state offices where Texans sign up for public assistance. The new system gives Texans more ways to apply for public assistance — mail, fax, Internet and phone — as well as in person.
Mary Katherine Stout of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which advocates for limited government, said those who argue for the state to resume public assistance enrollment overlook problems with the outdated state system.
She recently visited a state benefits office in Fort Worth and found that despite having appointments, Texans were waiting hours. One public assistance recipient told Stout she has a rule of thumb for visiting the state office: pack a lunch.
cmaclaggan@statesman.com; 445-3548.
By Corrie MacLaggan
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFFFriday, August 11, 2006
When Amanda Morris started working at a private office that enrolls Texans in public assistance, she was trained to enter information into a computer about people who want to apply for benefits.
But she immediately found that most cases didn't involve signups. Clients needed to renew benefits, make changes to their accounts or update their address.
And she didn't know how to do that.
"I trained for three weeks and was put onto the floor with about 2 percent knowledge of how to do my job," said Morris, 21, who works for a temp agency and has been on assignment since March with the San Antonio office of state contractor Texas Access Alliance.
Problems with worker training are one of the reasons the state has indefinitely delayed statewide rollout of that contractor's new call-in system to enroll Texans in food stamps, Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Morris' account sheds more light on the problems. A former Texas Access Alliance employee in San Antonio, who asked that her name not be used because it might affect her current job, said Morris' story matches her experience.
The state is paying more than $800 million over five years to the Texas Access Alliance, a consortium of private companies led by Accenture LLP, for the system, which has been in a pilot stage in Travis and Hays counties since January. The privatization was intended to save the state money.
Since the contractor took over, benefits recipients have reported getting inexplicably dropped from public assistance, talking to customer service representatives who couldn't answer their questions and being asked for information they'd already provided.
In response, the private group has retrained its call center employees and overhauled training for new hires, spokeswoman Mindy Brown said this week. Texas Access Alliance "has turned a major corner," she said.
"Our training is intensive and depends on each employee's role," Brown said. "If an employee feels they need additional training to do their job correctly, all they need to do is to speak with their supervisor and additional instruction can be arranged."
Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, said the reports of improved quality is a positive sign but that the state has not yet evaluated that. "We'll measure the success of the training by how well the call-center representatives
respond to client questions and concerns," she said.
Morris, for one, said training sessions she's attended recently were just as ineffective as the original.
She admits she's bitter about her job: her boyfriend was one of several dozen people laid off from the San Antonio office earlier this summer, and she wishes she earned more than her $12-per-hour salary. But she says that as a former recipient of food stamps and Medicaid, she's concerned about the experiences of the 3 million Texans who receive public assistance.
"You have no idea how (messed) up this is getting," said Morris, who works with applications and renewals but does not take calls. "There's misorganization regarding documents. Information gets linked incorrectly or lost altogether."
For example, Morris said she recently found that a public assistance recipient had submitted an address change. But an employee flagged the file to indicate a change of state residency, instead. And another employee who handled the case didn't catch the error. So the family was sent a letter asking about their Texas residency, Morris said.
Morris attributes problems like this to a lack of training and co-workers who are "purposely lazy." In May, Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Albert Hawkins announced that no new applications will be processed in the privately run San Antonio call center until the contractor improves.
Alton Martin, CEO of Customer Operations Performance Center, Inc., a New York-based call-center consultant, said the training problems aren't surprising.
When he asks call-center representatives at various sites whether they felt ready for their job, "about half the time they'll say training was really bad or nonexistent or not appropriate to the task."
Martin, whose company is not working with the Texas contract but has worked with Accenture on other projects, said that call center quality issues often stem from the contract.
"Maybe the state wasn't rigorous enough," said Martin, who works in Austin. "Lots of times people want to throw the vendor under the bus . . . (But) if you want a fast car, ask for a fast car."
Goodman, though, said the state has set a high bar and is doing its own quality checks.
The private call centers — located in San Antonio, Austin, Midland and Athens — are expected to replace some state offices where Texans sign up for public assistance. The new system gives Texans more ways to apply for public assistance — mail, fax, Internet and phone — as well as in person.
Mary Katherine Stout of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which advocates for limited government, said those who argue for the state to resume public assistance enrollment overlook problems with the outdated state system.
She recently visited a state benefits office in Fort Worth and found that despite having appointments, Texans were waiting hours. One public assistance recipient told Stout she has a rule of thumb for visiting the state office: pack a lunch.
cmaclaggan@statesman.com; 445-3548.
Wait Taken Out of Welfare, But Critics Just Aren't Happy
Note from Blogger: I have read articles by this twit in the past. She went into the office with her opinion already formed and failed to ask the right questions.....Like, maybe, why they had to wait so long? Maybe because we no longer have the staff available to do the job?
Visit to welfare field office demonstrates why change is desperately needed
By Mary Katherine Stout
Published: 07-31-06
Six months ago the state launched an ambitious plan to overhaul the way applications for government assistance are handled. But the plan has taken a pummeling at the hands of the state employees union and advocates for bigger government; they have relished the bad news and missteps dominating news reports of the new system.
Like the blacksmiths of a previous age facing the advent of the automobile, critics are calling for it to end before it can begin. (It's already begun - and it does not work!)
By making use of modern tools – such as the Internet and phone that have become standard conveniences today – the new system is designed to control costs, increase efficiency and greatly improve client accessibility. Rather than relying on in-person interviews in a field office with limited hours of operation, the new system allows applicants extended hours by phone, and 24-hour access online.
On July 10th, 30 House members sent Texas Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins a letter, expressing support for the new system and its promise to “bring administration of human services programs in Texas into the 21st century.”
Two days later, 60 other members of the Texas House sent an entirely different letter to Commissioner Hawkins urging him to cancel the state’s contract for this new, privatized health and human services eligibility system. They asked him to “commit the remaining resources to rebuild the human services eligibility system that, as little as two years ago, was among the best in the country.”
The contrast in positions could not be more stark.
One side claims the old way is best and should be rebuilt, while the other believes privatization will modernize the system.
Of course, the old system – this “best in the country” system – is still largely intact and serves most recipients of the state’s health and human services programs, since the new system isn’t available statewide. (NO, it is it not intact! Most offices are operating at less than 50% staffing, and that's quoting a high percentage. Some offices don't even have stafff anymore!)
And as critics pan the new system, they seem to hold a romanticized notion of the old ways. Perhaps they should consider what the “old” system looks like.
I drove to a field office outside the “pilot” area to see this old system in action.
I sat for two hours in a room with dozens of people, many of whom arrived long before I did, and would remain long after I left.
One man had been in the same office the day before, only to be told that his application couldn’t be finished before the end of the work day, and he would need to return the next day. On day two he arrived 50 minutes early for an 11 o’clock appointment, but was not seen until after 4 p.m.
As one woman waited for more than three hours for her appointment, she said the rule of thumb for these appointments was to “pack a lunch.” Not long after, she learned her name had been called while stepping outside, missing her “appointment.” She was instructed to return the next day, despite protests she had other state-required appointments to keep and difficulty in finding transportation.
Considering her instructions to return the next day, perhaps she will also begin taking a sleeping bag.
Waiting clients were called for their appointments by name, without regard to privacy. (That's not nearly as bad as TAA mailing a client someone else's COMPLETED application! Or providing a fax number to a warehouse in Seattle!)
We sat in a waiting room with white walls and no reading material; no information on finding a job, getting a degree, locating community resources, getting parenting guidance or child care. Some of those waiting attended to their children. Many talked on their cellular phones.
Most people spent hours just waiting – unproductively.
Perhaps I went to the one office in the state, on the one day of the year, for the two hour period, where things were just terribly wrong, but I doubt it.
While many would argue this is the result of short-staffed offices, the reality is that there is no excuse for a horse-and-buggy system when considering the technology now available.
A system that treats people with such lack of dignity, and with no respect for their time, is simply indefensible. (Wouldn't have to have been that way had that office had enough workers to do the job!)
At one time many of the new system’s critics would have agreed. For years they were quoted in newspapers pointing to the inconvenience of going to a field office for an in-person interview, highlighting the virtues of one-stop shopping, and demanding change based on reports of dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction with the system they now claim is superior to all others.
Reports of real problems in the new system cannot be taken lightly, and taxpayers should demand efficiency for every tax dollar. But calls to end the rollout and return to the old way are simply insufficient.
To ignore the opportunity to deliver services more efficiently for taxpayers and more conveniently for the recipients, despite having the resources to do so, is unacceptable.
The state must move forward using well-established technologies that deliver better efficiency for taxpayers, along with greater convenience for the recipients of state benefits. (Should we do this at the expense of the client's need for their benefits? New technology would have been welcomed by state workers years ago....why did we have to enable TAA / Accenture to profit from the "new technology plan"???? Now they are making money, our state workers are killing themselves to get the job done and our clients are doing without benefits!)
Mary Katherine Stout is the director of the Center for Health Care Policy Studies at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit research institute based in Austin.
Visit to welfare field office demonstrates why change is desperately needed
By Mary Katherine Stout
Published: 07-31-06
Six months ago the state launched an ambitious plan to overhaul the way applications for government assistance are handled. But the plan has taken a pummeling at the hands of the state employees union and advocates for bigger government; they have relished the bad news and missteps dominating news reports of the new system.
Like the blacksmiths of a previous age facing the advent of the automobile, critics are calling for it to end before it can begin. (It's already begun - and it does not work!)
By making use of modern tools – such as the Internet and phone that have become standard conveniences today – the new system is designed to control costs, increase efficiency and greatly improve client accessibility. Rather than relying on in-person interviews in a field office with limited hours of operation, the new system allows applicants extended hours by phone, and 24-hour access online.
On July 10th, 30 House members sent Texas Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins a letter, expressing support for the new system and its promise to “bring administration of human services programs in Texas into the 21st century.”
Two days later, 60 other members of the Texas House sent an entirely different letter to Commissioner Hawkins urging him to cancel the state’s contract for this new, privatized health and human services eligibility system. They asked him to “commit the remaining resources to rebuild the human services eligibility system that, as little as two years ago, was among the best in the country.”
The contrast in positions could not be more stark.
One side claims the old way is best and should be rebuilt, while the other believes privatization will modernize the system.
Of course, the old system – this “best in the country” system – is still largely intact and serves most recipients of the state’s health and human services programs, since the new system isn’t available statewide. (NO, it is it not intact! Most offices are operating at less than 50% staffing, and that's quoting a high percentage. Some offices don't even have stafff anymore!)
And as critics pan the new system, they seem to hold a romanticized notion of the old ways. Perhaps they should consider what the “old” system looks like.
I drove to a field office outside the “pilot” area to see this old system in action.
I sat for two hours in a room with dozens of people, many of whom arrived long before I did, and would remain long after I left.
One man had been in the same office the day before, only to be told that his application couldn’t be finished before the end of the work day, and he would need to return the next day. On day two he arrived 50 minutes early for an 11 o’clock appointment, but was not seen until after 4 p.m.
As one woman waited for more than three hours for her appointment, she said the rule of thumb for these appointments was to “pack a lunch.” Not long after, she learned her name had been called while stepping outside, missing her “appointment.” She was instructed to return the next day, despite protests she had other state-required appointments to keep and difficulty in finding transportation.
Considering her instructions to return the next day, perhaps she will also begin taking a sleeping bag.
Waiting clients were called for their appointments by name, without regard to privacy. (That's not nearly as bad as TAA mailing a client someone else's COMPLETED application! Or providing a fax number to a warehouse in Seattle!)
We sat in a waiting room with white walls and no reading material; no information on finding a job, getting a degree, locating community resources, getting parenting guidance or child care. Some of those waiting attended to their children. Many talked on their cellular phones.
Most people spent hours just waiting – unproductively.
Perhaps I went to the one office in the state, on the one day of the year, for the two hour period, where things were just terribly wrong, but I doubt it.
While many would argue this is the result of short-staffed offices, the reality is that there is no excuse for a horse-and-buggy system when considering the technology now available.
A system that treats people with such lack of dignity, and with no respect for their time, is simply indefensible. (Wouldn't have to have been that way had that office had enough workers to do the job!)
At one time many of the new system’s critics would have agreed. For years they were quoted in newspapers pointing to the inconvenience of going to a field office for an in-person interview, highlighting the virtues of one-stop shopping, and demanding change based on reports of dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction with the system they now claim is superior to all others.
Reports of real problems in the new system cannot be taken lightly, and taxpayers should demand efficiency for every tax dollar. But calls to end the rollout and return to the old way are simply insufficient.
To ignore the opportunity to deliver services more efficiently for taxpayers and more conveniently for the recipients, despite having the resources to do so, is unacceptable.
The state must move forward using well-established technologies that deliver better efficiency for taxpayers, along with greater convenience for the recipients of state benefits. (Should we do this at the expense of the client's need for their benefits? New technology would have been welcomed by state workers years ago....why did we have to enable TAA / Accenture to profit from the "new technology plan"???? Now they are making money, our state workers are killing themselves to get the job done and our clients are doing without benefits!)
Mary Katherine Stout is the director of the Center for Health Care Policy Studies at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit research institute based in Austin.
Letter to Austin American Statesman & reply
DEAR SIRS:
I AM A DISABLED TEXAN, UNDER THE AGE OF 65, YET STILL RECEIVE BENEFITS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE QMB AND FOOD STAMP PROGRAM. BECAUSE I AM DISABLED, IT IS VERY HARD FOR ME TO TAKE THE REQUIRED TIME TO UTILIZE THE NEW AND "IMPROVED" PROGRAM. I HAVE HAD MAJOR NECK AND BACK SURGERY THIS YEAR ALONE, WITH SERIOUS LIFE THREATENING COMPLICATIONS WITH THE BACK SURGERY I AM STILL TRYING TO RECUPERATE FROM. I DO NOT SEE WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM THAT IS TRIED AND TRUE. WHY FIX SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BROKEN?
SINCERELY,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*****************************************
Thank you for your insight. I'm sorry to hear about your difficult situation. Sounds like for you things would have been better the old way. Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely,
Corrie MacLagganHealth and human services reporter
Austin American-Statesman
305 S. Congress Ave.Austin, TX 78704
512.445.3548
I AM A DISABLED TEXAN, UNDER THE AGE OF 65, YET STILL RECEIVE BENEFITS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE QMB AND FOOD STAMP PROGRAM. BECAUSE I AM DISABLED, IT IS VERY HARD FOR ME TO TAKE THE REQUIRED TIME TO UTILIZE THE NEW AND "IMPROVED" PROGRAM. I HAVE HAD MAJOR NECK AND BACK SURGERY THIS YEAR ALONE, WITH SERIOUS LIFE THREATENING COMPLICATIONS WITH THE BACK SURGERY I AM STILL TRYING TO RECUPERATE FROM. I DO NOT SEE WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM THAT IS TRIED AND TRUE. WHY FIX SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BROKEN?
SINCERELY,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*****************************************
Thank you for your insight. I'm sorry to hear about your difficult situation. Sounds like for you things would have been better the old way. Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely,
Corrie MacLagganHealth and human services reporter
Austin American-Statesman
305 S. Congress Ave.Austin, TX 78704
512.445.3548
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM TEXAS STATE EMPLOYEES UNION
July 18, 2006 CONTACT WILL ROGERS@ 512/448-4225 OR wrogers@cwa-tseu.org
Ample reasons to fire Accenture
Austin-The Texas State Employees Union today said that failure by Accenture to carry out terms of its call center contract with the state Health and Human Service Commission provides ample grounds for canceling the contract.
"Accenture, for example, was supposed to train call center staff to process applications for services and to have integrated key software components that were essential to making the call centers work, but it failed to do either," Gross said. "These failures and others caused thousands of people to not get services or to experience unacceptable service delays."
The Austin American Statesman reported today that an HHSC attorney said that he couldn't find "anything that I've seen that represents something that in my opinion would require termination."
TSEU conducted a quick review of one portion of one section of the contract and found two serious breaches.
According to Section 10.03 (A), Accenture prior to implementation of call center pilot was supposed to have trained Texas Access Alliance (the call center subcontractors) personnel, but either didn't do so or did a very poor job.
Since the call centers have been put on hiatus, call center staff have been sent to local state eligibility offices for on-the-job training. Essentially, HHSC is now doing what it contracted with Accenture to do.
According to Section 10.03 (B), Accenture prior to implementation of the pilot was to have completed "integration of TIERS and MAXe3," two software applications whose integration was supposed to have made it possible for information gathered at the call centers to be seamlessly transferred to HHSC computers.
However, this integration is still not complete, and failure to complete this integration caused delays in providing services to people in need and in some cases caused eligible applicants to not receive services.
"We found these two major violation of the contract after a cursory review of just one small section of the contract" Gross said. "I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg."
Gross reiterated that TSEU supports the call made last week by a bi-partisan group of 60 state House members to cancel the Accenture contract and to use the money earmarked for it to rebuild the state's health and human services delivery capacity, which has atrophied since HHSC decided to privatize eligibility services.
To date, HHSC has paid Accenture more than $100 million even though the company has been unable to deliver the services stipulated in the contract that it signed last summer.
July 18, 2006 CONTACT WILL ROGERS@ 512/448-4225 OR wrogers@cwa-tseu.org
Ample reasons to fire Accenture
Austin-The Texas State Employees Union today said that failure by Accenture to carry out terms of its call center contract with the state Health and Human Service Commission provides ample grounds for canceling the contract.
"Accenture, for example, was supposed to train call center staff to process applications for services and to have integrated key software components that were essential to making the call centers work, but it failed to do either," Gross said. "These failures and others caused thousands of people to not get services or to experience unacceptable service delays."
The Austin American Statesman reported today that an HHSC attorney said that he couldn't find "anything that I've seen that represents something that in my opinion would require termination."
TSEU conducted a quick review of one portion of one section of the contract and found two serious breaches.
According to Section 10.03 (A), Accenture prior to implementation of call center pilot was supposed to have trained Texas Access Alliance (the call center subcontractors) personnel, but either didn't do so or did a very poor job.
Since the call centers have been put on hiatus, call center staff have been sent to local state eligibility offices for on-the-job training. Essentially, HHSC is now doing what it contracted with Accenture to do.
According to Section 10.03 (B), Accenture prior to implementation of the pilot was to have completed "integration of TIERS and MAXe3," two software applications whose integration was supposed to have made it possible for information gathered at the call centers to be seamlessly transferred to HHSC computers.
However, this integration is still not complete, and failure to complete this integration caused delays in providing services to people in need and in some cases caused eligible applicants to not receive services.
"We found these two major violation of the contract after a cursory review of just one small section of the contract" Gross said. "I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg."
Gross reiterated that TSEU supports the call made last week by a bi-partisan group of 60 state House members to cancel the Accenture contract and to use the money earmarked for it to rebuild the state's health and human services delivery capacity, which has atrophied since HHSC decided to privatize eligibility services.
To date, HHSC has paid Accenture more than $100 million even though the company has been unable to deliver the services stipulated in the contract that it signed last summer.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Lawmakers hear update on Accenture contract Problems persist despite
By Corrie MacLaggan mailto:cmaclaggan@statesman.com
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Despite some improvements in the state's system to enroll Texans in public assistance, many are still improperly being denied benefits, a House panel heard Wednesday from organizations that work closely with some of the 3 million Texans who receive food stamps, welfare and Medicaid.
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Accenture LLP, the lead contractor in a state agreement worth more than $800 million over five years, have come under fire recently for the private company's call centers.
The contractor is enrolling recipients in the Travis County and Hays County pilot area; Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Albert Hawkins this year delayed rolling out the system statewide.
The contractor is already handling statewide applications for children's Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
The system "has real and urgent problems that require real and urgent solutions," said Carlos Uresti, a San Antonio Democrat and the chairman of the House Government Reform Committee.
The most emotional testimony came when a Missouri City mother told the committee that the health insurance of her 9-year-old son, who has special needs, was inexplicably canceled.
"We need for you to really look and understand that it's the children here that we're sacrificing," Lorna Harvey, holding back tears, told the panel.
Problems with the eligibility system, one of several components of the contract with Accenture, include long wait times and inadequate training of customer service representatives.
Hawkins said other components of the contract, including the maintenance of TIERS, the computer backbone of the enrollment system, are mainly going well. He told legislators that he'd give the contractor an 'A' grade for those efforts. But for the eligibility system, which involves closing some offices where Texans apply for public assistance and taking applications by phone, mail, fax and Internet?
Incomplete, he said. (That's the best he could come up with?)
CHIP enrollment has continued to decline since the Texas Access Alliance, Accenture's group, took over the program in November. It's about 300,000, down from 500,000 in 2002.
Representatives from Accenture, which has received about $103 million so far for all aspects of its state contract, attributed some of the problems with its work to CHIP.
"We are working hard to make it easy for the people of Texas to receive services for which they qualify," said Randy Willis, managing director for delivery excellence with the USA Government Operating Unit of Accenture.
"We are not where we want to be . . . but we are seeing progress."
But Barbara Best, Texas executive director of the Children's Defense Fund, a national child advocacy organization, said she has been documenting recent cases of eligible children disenrolled from services because of processing errors. For example, some children who were denied services for being noncitizens are in fact citizens who have been receiving public assistance for years.
"I fear that these cases represent thousands more of families who never make it through the process," Best said.
A bipartisan group of 60 legislators earlier this month signed a letter asking Hawkins to cancel the contract with Accenture. The same week, a group of 30 Republican representatives indicated their support for the system.
The system has become a gubernatorial campaign issue.
"The privatization of Texas Health and Human Services has been a horrible waste of money," Democratic candidate Chris Bell said Wednesday. "The Accenture contract is just one example of the culture of corruption and corporate cronyism recommended by Comptroller (Carole Keeton) Strayhorn and signed into law by Governor Perry."
A spokesman for Strayhorn, an independent candidate who as comptroller is investigating the state's contract with Accenture, said that problems at the Health and Human Services Commission "are a direct result of this governor's failed leadership and misplaced priorities."
Independent candidate Kinky Friedman's campaign spokeswoman said that
letting a private company run the state's public assistance enrollment was "an experiment gone awry."
Robert Black, a campaign spokesman for Perry, said some wrinkles are to be expected in any major transition.
"But the governor still firmly believes that the reforms put in place by the legislature are the right way to go, that the state will see tremendous savings and that ultimately the consumers of these benefits are going to see much better service," he said.
cmaclaggan@statesman.com; 445-3548
Additional material by staff writer Jason Embry.
The story so far
The state hired the Texas Access Alliance, a private consortium headed by Accenture LLP, to run a call-in system for Texans to apply for Medicaid, food stamps and other benefits. Four call centers are set to replace some benefits offices under the contract, which originally was projected to cost $899 million and lead to the elimination of 2,900 state jobs.
Venting concerns over public aid
* A pilot program began in Travis and Hays counties in January. The system was supposed to go statewide later this year, but that plan was put on hold because of problems.
* Customers have complained of long waits, problems getting benefits and incorrect information from Accenture.
* The cost of the contract and the number of jobs that will be eliminated have been reduced because of the problems.
*State officials had projected $646 million in savings through the plan.
Officials said Wednesday that they think 'the savings expectations will be satisfied.'
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Despite some improvements in the state's system to enroll Texans in public assistance, many are still improperly being denied benefits, a House panel heard Wednesday from organizations that work closely with some of the 3 million Texans who receive food stamps, welfare and Medicaid.
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Accenture LLP, the lead contractor in a state agreement worth more than $800 million over five years, have come under fire recently for the private company's call centers.
The contractor is enrolling recipients in the Travis County and Hays County pilot area; Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Albert Hawkins this year delayed rolling out the system statewide.
The contractor is already handling statewide applications for children's Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
The system "has real and urgent problems that require real and urgent solutions," said Carlos Uresti, a San Antonio Democrat and the chairman of the House Government Reform Committee.
The most emotional testimony came when a Missouri City mother told the committee that the health insurance of her 9-year-old son, who has special needs, was inexplicably canceled.
"We need for you to really look and understand that it's the children here that we're sacrificing," Lorna Harvey, holding back tears, told the panel.
Problems with the eligibility system, one of several components of the contract with Accenture, include long wait times and inadequate training of customer service representatives.
Hawkins said other components of the contract, including the maintenance of TIERS, the computer backbone of the enrollment system, are mainly going well. He told legislators that he'd give the contractor an 'A' grade for those efforts. But for the eligibility system, which involves closing some offices where Texans apply for public assistance and taking applications by phone, mail, fax and Internet?
Incomplete, he said. (That's the best he could come up with?)
CHIP enrollment has continued to decline since the Texas Access Alliance, Accenture's group, took over the program in November. It's about 300,000, down from 500,000 in 2002.
Representatives from Accenture, which has received about $103 million so far for all aspects of its state contract, attributed some of the problems with its work to CHIP.
"We are working hard to make it easy for the people of Texas to receive services for which they qualify," said Randy Willis, managing director for delivery excellence with the USA Government Operating Unit of Accenture.
"We are not where we want to be . . . but we are seeing progress."
But Barbara Best, Texas executive director of the Children's Defense Fund, a national child advocacy organization, said she has been documenting recent cases of eligible children disenrolled from services because of processing errors. For example, some children who were denied services for being noncitizens are in fact citizens who have been receiving public assistance for years.
"I fear that these cases represent thousands more of families who never make it through the process," Best said.
A bipartisan group of 60 legislators earlier this month signed a letter asking Hawkins to cancel the contract with Accenture. The same week, a group of 30 Republican representatives indicated their support for the system.
The system has become a gubernatorial campaign issue.
"The privatization of Texas Health and Human Services has been a horrible waste of money," Democratic candidate Chris Bell said Wednesday. "The Accenture contract is just one example of the culture of corruption and corporate cronyism recommended by Comptroller (Carole Keeton) Strayhorn and signed into law by Governor Perry."
A spokesman for Strayhorn, an independent candidate who as comptroller is investigating the state's contract with Accenture, said that problems at the Health and Human Services Commission "are a direct result of this governor's failed leadership and misplaced priorities."
Independent candidate Kinky Friedman's campaign spokeswoman said that
letting a private company run the state's public assistance enrollment was "an experiment gone awry."
Robert Black, a campaign spokesman for Perry, said some wrinkles are to be expected in any major transition.
"But the governor still firmly believes that the reforms put in place by the legislature are the right way to go, that the state will see tremendous savings and that ultimately the consumers of these benefits are going to see much better service," he said.
cmaclaggan@statesman.com; 445-3548
Additional material by staff writer Jason Embry.
The story so far
The state hired the Texas Access Alliance, a private consortium headed by Accenture LLP, to run a call-in system for Texans to apply for Medicaid, food stamps and other benefits. Four call centers are set to replace some benefits offices under the contract, which originally was projected to cost $899 million and lead to the elimination of 2,900 state jobs.
Venting concerns over public aid
* A pilot program began in Travis and Hays counties in January. The system was supposed to go statewide later this year, but that plan was put on hold because of problems.
* Customers have complained of long waits, problems getting benefits and incorrect information from Accenture.
* The cost of the contract and the number of jobs that will be eliminated have been reduced because of the problems.
*State officials had projected $646 million in savings through the plan.
Officials said Wednesday that they think 'the savings expectations will be satisfied.'
Job Postings! (Does it look like we're going backwards, folks?)
These are positions coming available in my Region. Wouldn't be hard to figure which one that is but this is public knowledge anyway. You know - if they had bothered to listen to the people who actually did the work and dealt with the recipients, and hadn't played their games, we might not be in such a predicament now!
ART Staff
1 Lead Worker (B6).
4 Senior Disposition Workers (B5).
1 Unit Secretary (A10). This position will be housed in Marshall.
ME
1 ME Manager (B15). This is a state wide position that may be filled in any of the regions throughout the state.
2 ME Assistant Managers (B14). These are also state wide positions. The locations have yet to be determined. They probably will not be posted until the Manager job is filled.
2 Unit Supervisor ME (B7). Selected applicants for these positions would be placed in their current location contingent on available space.
2 Lead Worker ME (B6). Selected applicants for these positions would be placed in their current location contingent on available space.
2 Unit Secretary ME (A10). These positions will be housed with the selected Unit Supervisor.
4 Senior Disposition Worker ME (B5). Selected applicants for these positions would be placed in their current location contingent on available space.
8 Disposition Worker ME Call Center (B4). These positions are not new, however when they become vacant they will be filled via the perpetual postings. Staff interested in these positions should apply to both the ME Disposition Worker perpetual posting and the Call Center ME Disposition Worker posting. ME Call Center staff will be housed in their current location contingent on space available.
ART Staff
1 Lead Worker (B6).
4 Senior Disposition Workers (B5).
1 Unit Secretary (A10). This position will be housed in Marshall.
ME
1 ME Manager (B15). This is a state wide position that may be filled in any of the regions throughout the state.
2 ME Assistant Managers (B14). These are also state wide positions. The locations have yet to be determined. They probably will not be posted until the Manager job is filled.
2 Unit Supervisor ME (B7). Selected applicants for these positions would be placed in their current location contingent on available space.
2 Lead Worker ME (B6). Selected applicants for these positions would be placed in their current location contingent on available space.
2 Unit Secretary ME (A10). These positions will be housed with the selected Unit Supervisor.
4 Senior Disposition Worker ME (B5). Selected applicants for these positions would be placed in their current location contingent on available space.
8 Disposition Worker ME Call Center (B4). These positions are not new, however when they become vacant they will be filled via the perpetual postings. Staff interested in these positions should apply to both the ME Disposition Worker perpetual posting and the Call Center ME Disposition Worker posting. ME Call Center staff will be housed in their current location contingent on space available.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Why did the chicken cross the road?
DR. PHIL
The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on "THIS" side of the road before it goes after the problem on the "OTHER SIDE" of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he's acting by not taking on his "CURRENT" problems before adding "NEW" problems.
OPRAH
Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
GEORGE W BUSH
We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
COLIN POWELL
Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road...
ANDERSON COOPER- CNN
We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
JOHN KERRY
Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.
NANCY GRACE
That chicken crossed the road because he's GUILTY! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN
To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART
No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going.I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when theprice dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insiderinformation.
DR SEUSS
Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY
To die in the rain. Alone.
JERRY FALWELL
Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plaintruth in front of your face? The chicken was going to the "otherside." That's why they call it the "other side." Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like"the other side." That chicken should not be be crossing the road. It's as plain and simple as that!
GRANDPA
In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.
BARBARA WALTERS
Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its life long dream of crossing the road.
JOHN LENNON
Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.
ARISTOTLE
It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
BILL GATES
I have just released eChicken2005, which will not only crossroads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your check book. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken. This new platform is much more stable and will never cra...#@&&^( C \..... reboot.
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
BILL CLINTON
I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What is your definition of chicken?
AL GORE
I invented the chicken!
COLONEL SANDERS
Did I miss one?
STATE of TEXAS
We are not really concerned as to Why the chicken crossed. Rather we are determined to alleviate the burdens the chicken had in crossing said road. Difficulties like not having access to alternate crossing strategies. Therefore, so that the Chicken will gain greater access to the Other Side of the Road, & save precious taxpayer monies, we will Privatize the Road. The private corporation will install a fee booth on both sides of the road. The private company’s employees will man the booths and provide much easier access to the benefit of road crossing. Additionally, the chicken will apply by computer online for permission. With this new process the chicken will provide information and verification as to WHY he wanted to cross. Once all verification is submitted the booth attendants will receive a task on their computer screen allowing the chicken to pass or to request new information. In this way all the chickens of the STATE of TEXAS will be better served. AND, the STATE of TEXAS will save $$$ by not having to maintain the road.
Note from Blogger: Again, this was received from another "source". I do know of the author but will not list his name in case he would rather it was "protected". Author from the State of Texas - if you wish to identify yourself, feel free. I enjoyed Texas' response to the dilemma of the chicken! It is so true! :)
The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on "THIS" side of the road before it goes after the problem on the "OTHER SIDE" of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he's acting by not taking on his "CURRENT" problems before adding "NEW" problems.
OPRAH
Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
GEORGE W BUSH
We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
COLIN POWELL
Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road...
ANDERSON COOPER- CNN
We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
JOHN KERRY
Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.
NANCY GRACE
That chicken crossed the road because he's GUILTY! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN
To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART
No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going.I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when theprice dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insiderinformation.
DR SEUSS
Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY
To die in the rain. Alone.
JERRY FALWELL
Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plaintruth in front of your face? The chicken was going to the "otherside." That's why they call it the "other side." Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like"the other side." That chicken should not be be crossing the road. It's as plain and simple as that!
GRANDPA
In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.
BARBARA WALTERS
Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its life long dream of crossing the road.
JOHN LENNON
Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.
ARISTOTLE
It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
BILL GATES
I have just released eChicken2005, which will not only crossroads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your check book. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken. This new platform is much more stable and will never cra...#@&&^( C \..... reboot.
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
BILL CLINTON
I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What is your definition of chicken?
AL GORE
I invented the chicken!
COLONEL SANDERS
Did I miss one?
STATE of TEXAS
We are not really concerned as to Why the chicken crossed. Rather we are determined to alleviate the burdens the chicken had in crossing said road. Difficulties like not having access to alternate crossing strategies. Therefore, so that the Chicken will gain greater access to the Other Side of the Road, & save precious taxpayer monies, we will Privatize the Road. The private corporation will install a fee booth on both sides of the road. The private company’s employees will man the booths and provide much easier access to the benefit of road crossing. Additionally, the chicken will apply by computer online for permission. With this new process the chicken will provide information and verification as to WHY he wanted to cross. Once all verification is submitted the booth attendants will receive a task on their computer screen allowing the chicken to pass or to request new information. In this way all the chickens of the STATE of TEXAS will be better served. AND, the STATE of TEXAS will save $$$ by not having to maintain the road.
Note from Blogger: Again, this was received from another "source". I do know of the author but will not list his name in case he would rather it was "protected". Author from the State of Texas - if you wish to identify yourself, feel free. I enjoyed Texas' response to the dilemma of the chicken! It is so true! :)
I love my job I love my job I love my job....
Nope, still not working.
I used to love my job I used to love my job I used to love my job..................Today, I wanted to walk out! I have hundreds of changes due by this cutoff, which is Wednesday as you all know. I have lost my supervisor and now I have to do my job as well as hers. I can't even answer my phone anymore because if I did, I'd never get anything done (which I'm not anyway because I'm constantly handling complaints at the front desk!) Our workers can't even get their work done timely now but we are expected to "loan" workers to other offices?!? This has gotten completely out of hand!
Now they say that Worker IVs can no longer be "acting supervisors". WELL HELL - Get me a damn supervisor so I don't have to do that job also! These idiots have really pissed me off now!
Anyone reading this an attorney? Know an attorney? We need a class action lawsuit against the State of Texas!
Note from blogger: Received from a "front line staff", names and offices always protected, of course.
I used to love my job I used to love my job I used to love my job..................Today, I wanted to walk out! I have hundreds of changes due by this cutoff, which is Wednesday as you all know. I have lost my supervisor and now I have to do my job as well as hers. I can't even answer my phone anymore because if I did, I'd never get anything done (which I'm not anyway because I'm constantly handling complaints at the front desk!) Our workers can't even get their work done timely now but we are expected to "loan" workers to other offices?!? This has gotten completely out of hand!
Now they say that Worker IVs can no longer be "acting supervisors". WELL HELL - Get me a damn supervisor so I don't have to do that job also! These idiots have really pissed me off now!
Anyone reading this an attorney? Know an attorney? We need a class action lawsuit against the State of Texas!
Note from blogger: Received from a "front line staff", names and offices always protected, of course.
NOTE FROM BLOGGER: This is not HHSC related but I found it absurd and ridiculous! We have got to change the administration in Texas!!!!!
NEWSclips Date: July 17, 2006
Death row for doctors? Absurd - but possible By Editorial Board Austin American-Statesman Imagine a Texas doctor facing the possibility of the death penalty for performing an abortion on a willing minor or even a grown woman. Although some of the most extreme opponents of abortion might welcome just such a prosecution, the idea probably sounds far-fetched to most Texans.
But the Texas District and County Attorneys Association says in a guide to state laws enacted in 2005 by the Legislature that just such a prosecution is possible, even if it is "undoubtedly an unintended consequence" of an effort to limit abortions by teenage girls and women in their third trimester unless their health was endangered.
This interpretation of the law, which even abortion activists reject, is worrisome. Remember, abortion itself remains legal, even constitutionally protected under several U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Lawmakers say they never intended to make doctors vulnerable to a capital murder charge, but this is Texas, where an ambitious prosecutor in a strongly anti-abortion county might well decide to score some political points by bringing just such a case if the opportunity arose.
State Rep. David Swinford, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee, doesn't think the association is right - but he's concerned enough to have asked Attorney General Greg Abbott for a formal legal opinion.
Here's the situation:
A law passed in 2003 makes killing an "unborn child" at any stage of pregnancy a capital murder offense. But a legal defense to such a charge is that a doctor was performing a legal abortion.
Then, in 2005, the Legislature passed a law that requires pregnant girls under 18 to have parental permission or a court order to get an abortion and bars most third trimester abortions. Put the two laws together, the prosecutors' guidebook points out, and a doctor who aborted the pregnancy of a woman in her seventh or higher month of pregnancy or a minor who did not have parental or court permission theoretically could face a capital murder charge.
Even anti-abortion groups are shying away from such an interpretation, though apparently more because of political reality than principled objection to the idea of such a prosecution. Kyleen Wright, president of Texans For Life Coalition, said murder prosecutions were not the intent of the new law and: "We're not trying to get out ahead of public opinion."
Those who oppose abortion want eventually to make it illegal, she said, with "stiff measures to act as a deterrent" - though not capital punishment.
After all, she said, even among abortion opponents there are diverse views about the morality of capital punishment.
Sarah Wheat, spokeswoman for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, said she welcomed the request for the attorney general's opinion because "when it comes to abortion, you can't assume anything."
Wheat is right. Somewhere in Texas a prosecutor is looking at the new abortion law and thinking, "Hmm . . ."
http://online.dshs.state.tx.us/oc/newsclips/default.htm
NEWSclips Date: July 17, 2006
Death row for doctors? Absurd - but possible By Editorial Board Austin American-Statesman Imagine a Texas doctor facing the possibility of the death penalty for performing an abortion on a willing minor or even a grown woman. Although some of the most extreme opponents of abortion might welcome just such a prosecution, the idea probably sounds far-fetched to most Texans.
But the Texas District and County Attorneys Association says in a guide to state laws enacted in 2005 by the Legislature that just such a prosecution is possible, even if it is "undoubtedly an unintended consequence" of an effort to limit abortions by teenage girls and women in their third trimester unless their health was endangered.
This interpretation of the law, which even abortion activists reject, is worrisome. Remember, abortion itself remains legal, even constitutionally protected under several U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Lawmakers say they never intended to make doctors vulnerable to a capital murder charge, but this is Texas, where an ambitious prosecutor in a strongly anti-abortion county might well decide to score some political points by bringing just such a case if the opportunity arose.
State Rep. David Swinford, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee, doesn't think the association is right - but he's concerned enough to have asked Attorney General Greg Abbott for a formal legal opinion.
Here's the situation:
A law passed in 2003 makes killing an "unborn child" at any stage of pregnancy a capital murder offense. But a legal defense to such a charge is that a doctor was performing a legal abortion.
Then, in 2005, the Legislature passed a law that requires pregnant girls under 18 to have parental permission or a court order to get an abortion and bars most third trimester abortions. Put the two laws together, the prosecutors' guidebook points out, and a doctor who aborted the pregnancy of a woman in her seventh or higher month of pregnancy or a minor who did not have parental or court permission theoretically could face a capital murder charge.
Even anti-abortion groups are shying away from such an interpretation, though apparently more because of political reality than principled objection to the idea of such a prosecution. Kyleen Wright, president of Texans For Life Coalition, said murder prosecutions were not the intent of the new law and: "We're not trying to get out ahead of public opinion."
Those who oppose abortion want eventually to make it illegal, she said, with "stiff measures to act as a deterrent" - though not capital punishment.
After all, she said, even among abortion opponents there are diverse views about the morality of capital punishment.
Sarah Wheat, spokeswoman for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, said she welcomed the request for the attorney general's opinion because "when it comes to abortion, you can't assume anything."
Wheat is right. Somewhere in Texas a prosecutor is looking at the new abortion law and thinking, "Hmm . . ."
http://online.dshs.state.tx.us/oc/newsclips/default.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
