Indiana Chamber President Kevin Brinegar explains why the legislature should prepare to move on State Superintendent Tony Bennett’s reforms to help Indiana high schools graduate more prepared students and enhance higher ed in the state.
Can medicine replace motors as the economic engine in the Detroit metropolitan area? Not so fast, says the Center for Studying Health System Change, which recognizes possibilities but warns of potential dangers in high levels of health care capital investment. The Center for Studying Health System Change reports:
Despite a weak economic outlook, Detroit area hospital systems plan to spend more than $1.3 billion in the coming years on capital improvements, leading some to hope that medical care can help revitalize the area’s economy, according to a new Community Report released today by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) and the nonpartisan, nonprofit National Institute for Health Care Reform (NIHCR).
Overlooked in the enthusiasm is the possibility that significant expansion of the community’s health care infrastructure may lead to higher health care costs if the hospital systems can’t attract new patients from outside the Detroit metropolitan area, according to the report.
“If all the spending on capital improvements leads to increased use of high-tech services or additional costs from excess capacity, the end result might be higher private health insurance premiums, which could negatively impact employers and employees,” said Paul B. Ginsburg, Ph.D., HSC president and NICHR director of research.
The challenges facing the Detroit metropolitan area’s health care system are intertwined with the challenges facing the community as a whole, including a declining and aging population; major suburban/urban differences in income, employment, health insurance coverage, and health status; and a shrinking industrial base, according to the report.
Thanks to a story by WRTV 6 News in Indianapolis, we now know why townships don’t always file their state-required reports on time — or at all in some cases. It’s because "the dog ate my homework" or "we can’t do that because we don’t know how to use a computer."
Elementary school teachers have heard the former for years, while the latter is no longer applicable as that computer and Internet thing appears to be here to say. Sure, I gave my own interpretations to township officials’ comments when questioned about their reports, but read for yourself and see if you don’t come away with the same impression.
It’s not just an Indianapolis problem, of course. It’s more than 1,000 trustees statewide and 3,000-4,000 advisory board members taking part in a form of government that features ineffectiveness, inefficiency, nepotism, fraud and the like. Just a few of those recent stories can be found here, here, here and here.
While the effort to find a better way to serve citizens and save taxpayer money continues, the results have unfortunately become a farce. The township system DOES NOT WORK, and maybe even worse, lawmakers won’t do anything about it. Those in office and those running for election this fall: When will you fix this mess?
Eric Bradner of the Evansville Courier & Press continues his fine work in outlining the shortcomings of township government. See his latest entry here, with more expected in coming weeks.
The topic (late or not filed at all state-required financial reports) is now new; the reports for fiscal year 2009 (due in the first few months of this year) are missing in action for many. In addition to the story details, even more township trustees (nearly 400 of them) have filed to file an annual salary report. Who knows what interesting numbers are in hiding.
Here’s a brief section of Bradner’s story. It leaves one thinking — once again — why these townships continue to exist.
(In Warrick County), Lane Township Trustee Linda Orth … said she never knew she was supposed to file an annual financial report with the state and was unaware of the switch to an electronic format.
"I am still learning what I am supposed to do and not do," she said. "They change these rules quite regularly, and there is no official training."
Orth was appointed to the position in 2006 because her predecessor quit. She kept the job after that year’s election because no one ran for trustee. She later tried to resign, but said county officials told her she should wait until a replacement was trained. No one was interested.
As I made my way to the polls (a lovely golf course that had more people on the driving range at that early hour than doing their part for democracy) just after 7 a.m. today, I couldn’t help but wonder why vote centers haven’t been given more of a chance. Yes, a few Indiana counties were allowed to experiment in recent years and the results were positive, but legislative attempts to expand the concept have not gained traction.
Instead of numerous golf courses, schools, churches, fire stations and other polling places throughout a county, voting would take place at fewer but more centralized locations (think closer to work and play). More flexibility for the voters (I would not have made it back to the scenic golf course by 6 p.m. if I had not been able to make it there before work) and signficant financial benefits for counties (less machines, fewer poll workers and undoubtedly a reduction in problems that inevitably occur at far-flung precincts where the number of voters in 12 hours barely equals the age of one of the poll workers; OK, a cheap shot, but thank goodness for those willing to work the polls election after election after election).
Vote centers are one of those ideas that simply makes sense. Kind of like township reform. With both, you would do away with an antiquated system, save money (lots of money in many cases) and more effectively serve citizens.
Established political forces don’t want local government to change, no matter the cost to taxpayers. Is it the same with vote centers? If so, why? Help me, help all of us understand.
On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the most sweeping health care reform legislation since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in the mid 1960s. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (collectively, "Act"), will eventually impact nearly every employer, business, individual and health care provider in America.
The Act is over 900 pages long, and it includes some provisions that have received considerable attention, such as individual and employer mandates to obtain insurance coverage. Many other provisions have not received such attention, yet they will have a significant impact on individuals and employers. There is also a perception among some that the Act does not become effective for several years. While this is true for certain provisions, such as the excise tax on high cost health insurance plans, several other important provisions will require many employers to review and revise their employee benefit plans as early as September 2010.
It is important that Chamber members and other Indiana employers understand the many changes under the new health care reform Act and the impact these changes will have on their business. To assist in this regard, the Chamber and Ice Miller are hosting the third in a series of seminars on health care reform on April 29, 2010, at the Hilton in downtown Indianapolis.
This seminar will include presentations on the following topics:
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller will discuss the litigation filed by Indiana and several other states to challenge certain aspects of the Act. Additionally, the conference will include two panel discussions with distinguished speakers. One panel will feature representatives from Anthem, Eli Lilly (invited), the Cook Group, the Indiana Hospital Association and the Indiana State Medical Association discussing the Act’s impact on the health care industry. The second panel discussion will focus on the Act’s impact on large and small employers and union employees and will include speakers from Fairfield Manufacturing, Womack Restaurants, and the Indiana Chamber. There will also be focus group sessions during the conference lunch on topics of interest to certain groups. Ice Miller lawyers with applicable experience will facilitate discussions and answer questions on the following topics:
This seminar provides a unique opportunity to learn about the sweeping changes and to hear how other individuals and businesses plan to deal with these changes. We urge you to attend.
Chamber President Kevin Brinegar explains legislators "failed to deliver meaningful local government reform" this spring, and taxpayers are feeling the brunt of it. He points to many late 2009 filings and an egregious abuse of township monies in Evansville as examples of why we need to hold legislators accountable.
Since disbelief is already in the air due to the wonder that is the NCAA hoops tourney (Go Dawgs!), here’s a shocker to add to the list from the world of township governance. The Central Indiana Corporate Partnership (CICP) blog sums it up aptly, but hold onto your beverage while reading (and hopefully that beverage is just coffee since it’s only 8 a.m.):
(Thursday’s) Indianapolis Star includes an interesting article on the latest antics from the world of township government – the Washington Township (Marion County) trustee racking up $20,000 in legal bills in a dispute over $758 in poor relief aid sought by a township resident for help with her rent and water bills.
Of the many troubling issues this story raises, two stand out. First, the idea that these sorts of fiscally imprudent decisions are being made with little or no oversight by 1,008 separately-elected township officials is disheartening given the dire financial straits of state and local governments.
Across Indiana, local officials are debating cuts in education, infrastructure, public safety and more. Counties and municipalities are making tough choices. Our legislature has made these choices even tougher by not stepping to the plate and making its own difficult political decision to reform local government, at least by demanding more oversight and streamlining of township offices. And so we continue to be burdened by another layer of government bureaucracy that consumes and squanders tax dollars.
As to the circumstances of the Washington Township case itself, it’s difficult to argue the merits of either side on the basis of any statewide or even countywide guidelines. That’s the second issue – there are no common rules for the provision of poor relief in Indiana. Each township sets its own, leading to a patchwork approach that’s unfair and inefficient. More than half the state’s townships provide relief to 20 households or less, and spend three dollars in overhead for every one that actually reaches a disadvantaged family. It’s no surprise that disputes such as the one in Washington Township arise.
While the General Assembly again failed to take action on local government reform this session, more and more communities are exploring consolidation themselves out of financial necessity. As these efforts multiply across the state and the fiscal climate continues to worsen, let’s hope that common sense reform – starting with township government – begins to gain more converts among lawmakers.
Indiana Chamber President Kevin Brinegar explains that although the United States does need health care reform, what Congress is proposing takes the nation in the wrong direction on several fronts.
On Saturday, a 60-39 vote opened the debate on the 2,074-page health care bill in the U.S. Senate. The debate on the amending proposal is slated to last for several (if not more) weeks. CNN reports:
"We do not believe completely restructuring one-sixth of our economy is a good idea at any time," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, told CNN. "It is a particularly bad idea when we’re looking at double-digit unemployment."
McConnell and other Republicans call for an incremental approach that they say would reduce the costs of health care without creating new bureaucracy and taxes.
"We think we ought to go step-by-step to improve the system," McConnell said. "The American people are not complaining about the quality of health care. They’re complaining about the cost of health care."
Democrats respond that the Republicans are ignoring millions of Americans who can’t get health insurance.
Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Democrat who was a Republican for most of his long career until changing parties this year, told "Fox News Sunday": "The one option which is not present in my judgment is the option of doing nothing."
"We have the opposition refusing to admit that there’s any problem with health care, refusing to admit that there’s any problem with global warming, refusing to take a stand on the economic crisis," Specter complained about his former party.
The 60-39 Senate vote Saturday to open debate revealed the partisan divide on the issue, and the fragility of the Democratic support. Democrats needed their entire caucus, including two independents, to muster the 60 votes required in the 100-member chamber to overcome a Republican filibuster.
Now several conservative and moderate Democrats say they won’t support a final bill that includes a public insurance option. Republicans unanimously oppose the public option, which means it cannot survive in the chamber without unanimous Democratic support.
"I don’t think anybody feels this bill will pass" in its current form, Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut told NBC’s "Meet the Press." Lieberman voted to start debate on the bill, but reiterated Sunday he would join a Republican filibuster if the public option remains in the proposal when it comes time to end the debate.
See the Indiana Chamber’s view below: