CLT
UPDATE
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
"Jason and Tiffany" will survive!
Spring brought blooms of yard signs to the broad
lawns of Wrentham, where a vote Monday on raising property taxes is
dividing the town. On one block were signs of revolt -- "No $1,100,000
tax override" -- while signs in nearby yards scattered with small bikes
and toys urged their neighbors to vote yes.
"People that got kids in the school want the override and those that
don't, don't," said Richard Campbell, 56, who lives along a row of
modest homes tucked into the woods off Wrentham's Creek Street. "We get
all these people making all this kind of money and they want everything
they want, and they want everybody to pay for it." ...
"The need for overrides is greater than ever in order just to protect
the existing level of services," said Michael J. Widmer, president of
the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation....
But other town residents think they are being dealt a false choice and
blame local officials for poor financial planning.
Chip Faulkner -- associate director of the statewide antitax
group, Citizens for Limited Taxation, and a Wrentham resident --
said he believes the argument voiced by Romney's former budget chief,
Eric Kriss, that municipalities have still not learned to live within
their means.
"Because they can't control the runaway spending, they're asking us for
a tax hike," Faulkner said. "That's ridiculous. Keep your budget under
control."
The Boston Globe
Saturday, April 1, 2006
Short of cash, towns turn to overrides
Reduced state aid means struggle to pay bills for some
The
Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation is already warning that the proposed increase in local
aid eliminates "essentially all of the fiscal flexibility created by the recent
strong growth in tax revenues," and says this level of assistance will be
difficult to sustain in the future, especially if the Legislature approves a
costly health-care program....
Speaking of the health-care bill, here's the Citizens for Limited Taxation
take on the proposed House-Senate compromise:
"Adding a new $295 tax for companies that do not provide
health insurance is adding another bad tax to an existing bad tax. Massachusetts
should repeal the $62 (currently assessed against those who do provide
insurance), and not assess the $295. ... If the final bill looks like the bill
that is presently being floated, Governor Romney should veto it, then address it
as president of the United States."
The Salem News
Friday, March 31, 2006
Weekly political column
By Nelson Benton
Hilary Clinton and Ira Magaziner were widely criticized in
1993 and 1994 for attempting to remake the vast, anarchic financing of the
American health care system in secret, behind closed White House doors. With
high-minded intentions the then First Lady showed she didn't then understand the
basic workings of the democratic process.
In Massachusetts in 2006, Salvatore DiMasi and Robert Travaglini --
respectively, the House Speaker and the Senate President -- are putting Mrs.
Clinton's penchant for secrecy to shame....
I don't like to speculate and I don't like to be cynical about the work of
fellow human beings. But the disgraceful lack of forthrightness by the leaders
of the two Houses and whomever they may be confiding in leaves me to fear the
very worst.
Health Care Bill:
Fearing The Worst [Politicus #890]
Thursday, March 30, 2006
By David Mittell
Conference committee negotiators say the plan requires $125 million in new
state money for each of the first three years of implementation, along with $184
million in federal contributions. After three years, lawmakers say the plan will
be "revenue neutral," meaning additional state money would not be required....
A big question mark hanging over the bill is whether Romney will sign off on a
new assessment on employers who don't offer insurance. Under the legislation,
companies with more than 10 employees that do not offer insurance will be
required to pay $295 per-employee into a state-controlled fund. All employers
will be required to pay $62 a-head, a fee they are currently charged.
Additionally, if employees at non-offering companies do not purchase affordable
insurance on their own and have their health care paid for under the
Uncompensated Care Pool, their companies will be charged an additional
assessment. That "free-rider" surcharge is applicable only if employees rack up
a treatment bill of $50,000 collectively, and if an employee requires treatment
at least three times.
When asked about the per-employee assessment, Romney said he does not consider
it a tax. "It's not a tax hike. It is a fee. It's an assessment." ...
Under the bill, individuals will be required to purchase an affordable product
by July 1, 2007. Beginning with income tax forms filed in 2008, residents will
be asked to verify coverage and forfeit their personal exemption for that year
if they have not purchased an affordable product. Some residents could be
eligible for a one-year waiver of that penalty, lawmakers said.
After the first year, residents not purchasing affordable insurance will be
charged one-half the cost of the most affordable product.
The Department of Revenue will be charged with writing regulations and
overseeing many portions of the individual mandate's implementation.
State House News Service
Monday, April 3, 2006
House, senate accord requires
big health insurance access expansion
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Statewide universal healthcare, and an insurance
mandate on all parties to pay for it, at last seems to have finally made
it through the Legislature, so at long last other business before the
body can proceed. As one state rep. noted: "We're just
pleased that it's over with." Whether or not it's the "best
solution" has yet to be analyzed. We'll have more to say about it
tomorrow, after everyone's had time to look it over for the details.
The devil, after all, is always in the details.
In the meantime, CLT associate director Chip Faulkner
has had another win -- two in fact! -- in his hometown of Wrentham,
which went to the polls yesterday and strongly defeated overrides (see
Boston Globe report). The general override went down: Yes 748, No
2189 74% No. The vote on the Community Preservation Act: Yes 1299,
No 1641. Overrides can be defeated, and from the Wrentham results,
taxpayers have had enough.
Like what Howie Carr calls the "Trustafarians,"
like the one Barbara described in his column, some have just more
money than they know what to do with -- especially if they can get you
to pay for their brood of offspring. As Mary Ann Nardone, from her
pillared stately brick McMansion in a new Wrentham development,
clarified below. If you want basic public services like police or
fire protection, your roads plowed, trash picked up, then you'd better
pony up to support her brood in the means to which they've been born
accustomed, or in her mind give it up:
"Nardone was so motivated by her love for Wrentham
teachers that she and a friend paid for 50 lawn signs urging their
neighbors to vote yes on the tax hike. With fliers warning that "your
child will be affected by the override," she and other parents say
that a defeat would spell doom in the classroom: Bigger class sizes,
teacher layoffs, and the loss of programs like Spanish education and
computer technology.
"'I keep telling them, I agree with you; I don't want more taxes,'
Nardone said. 'However, if you want police, if you want fire, if you
want Wrentham on the map, you have to pay.'"
And pay, and pay, and pay -- for the best for her
brood and the education-industrial establishment she adores.
Or simply move out and let more of her kind move in,
until she can't afford living there any longer either.
But Mary Ann and her Trustafarian friends lost
yesterday! What will Jason and Tiffany do next? The
youngsters will survive, make do, somehow. We did.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Saturday, April 1, 2006
Short of cash, towns turn to overrides
Reduced state aid means struggle to pay bills for some
By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff
WRENTHAM -- Spring brought blooms of yard signs to the broad lawns of
Wrentham, where a vote Monday on raising property taxes is dividing the
town. On one block were signs of revolt -- "No $1,100,000 tax override"
-- while signs in nearby yards scattered with small bikes and toys urged
their neighbors to vote yes.
"People that got kids in the school want the override and those that
don't, don't," said Richard Campbell, 56, who lives along a row of
modest homes tucked into the woods off Wrentham's Creek Street. "We get
all these people making all this kind of money and they want everything
they want, and they want everybody to pay for it."
With another season of tax overrides in cities and towns, anxieties over
property taxes are front and center in this year's race for governor, as
candidates tap into voters' worries about rising taxes and high
expectations for schools, police and fire service, and public works
projects.
Already, candidates for governor are debating the merits of cutting the
state income tax rate or using replenished state revenues to return more
aid to local government, so they can offer homeowners some property tax
relief. The towns say that they are starved for cash because of aid
cutbacks by Beacon Hill and that their only outlet is an override vote
under Proposition 2½. The law limits the annual increase in taxes and
requires voters' approval for extra tax hikes.
An improving state budget picture may mean money for cities and towns in
the future, but for now some cities and towns -- Wrentham, Millis, and
Needham among them -- are asking voters to pass overrides this spring.
Driven by reduced state aid and skyrocketing healthcare costs for
municipal employees, the number of tax cap override efforts nearly
tripled between 2000 and last year. There were 164 override attempts
last year, almost half the state's cities and towns, but only 87
succeeded. The total this year has not yet been compiled by the state.
Many of the overrides have been proposed not for glitzy new construction
projects, but simply to pay the bills. In Millis, where voters last year
defeated a small, $142,000 override to restore jobs in the Police
Department and in public works, officials are trying again, pitching a
$1.1 million override to help fund the schools, public safety, the
library, and health and human services.
"The need for overrides is greater than ever in order just to protect
the existing level of services," said Michael J. Widmer, president of
the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Beacon Hill is taking notice. Governor Mitt Romney's proposed budget for
the fiscal year that begins in July calls for an additional $197.9
million for communities by lifting the cap on the state lottery, a
proposal echoed last week by House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
Aid to cities and towns from the state budget has gradually increased
since the state budget crisis of 2003. Despite the increase, the
governor's proposed budget for next year would add just $16,000 to the
Wrentham town budget, because other state aid is being cut, said town
administrator Steven C. Boudreau. "I don't think the town of Wrentham is
going to shut down, but we're not going to be able to do the same things
as this year, next year," Boudreau said.
In Wrentham, a town of about 11,000 people that is home to the sprawling
Wrentham Village Premium Outlets, the debate in the shops and front
yards is about the value of town services and the cost to home finances.
On Monday's ballot, Wrentham officials will ask voters to boost real
estate and personal property taxes by an additional $1.1 million to pay
for routine municipal services.
The tax override would add about $264 to the average single family tax
bill of $4,579, based on data from the state Department of Revenue's
Division of Local Services. On the same ballot, voters will decide
whether to add another 2 percent on their property bills to protect land
under the Community Preservation Act.
Voters have very personal opinions about whether the tradeoff is worth
it to them.
"I'm not as worried about my tax bill as I am about the class sizes
going higher than they are," said Kelly Foxx, a mother of three who
supports the override.
"I don't think anyone wants to pay more taxes," Jack Unger, 43, who has
two children in the schools, said as his son ate ice cream at Tootsie's
Ice Cream in the town center. However, he added, "If there's no other
options and that's been looked at, you don't have much choice."
But other town residents think they are being dealt a false choice and
blame local officials for poor financial planning.
Chip Faulkner -- associate director of the statewide antitax
group, Citizens for Limited Taxation, and a Wrentham resident --
said he believes the argument voiced by Romney's former budget chief,
Eric Kriss, that municipalities have still not learned to live within
their means.
"Because they can't control the runaway spending, they're asking us for
a tax hike," Faulkner said. "That's ridiculous. Keep your budget under
control."
Angry Wrentham taxpayers point to a flurry of construction projects that
the town launched in recent years: a major renovation of Town Hall, two
new schools and a high school addition, and a new public safety building
that one selectman described as lavish.
"We have got the best of everything, and we can't afford the best of
everything," said John Zizza, one of two selectmen who voted against
putting the tax override before voters and who urges greater fiscal
restraint. "I have a saying I've been using for years here: The best
services in the world are meaningless if you can't afford to live here
anymore. But there are people who don't care."
Mary Ann Nardone sees things differently. A mother of twin second-grade
boys, who lives in a stately home in newer development, she likens the
need for new town buildings to shopping for her family. "When you have
children, they all need shoes at the same time," she said. "We can't
wait for another year."
Nardone was so motivated by her love for Wrentham teachers that she and
a friend paid for 50 lawn signs urging their neighbors to vote yes on
the tax hike. With fliers warning that "your child will be affected by
the override," she and other parents say that a defeat would spell doom
in the classroom: Bigger class sizes, teacher layoffs, and the loss of
programs like Spanish education and computer technology.
"I keep telling them, I agree with you; I don't want more taxes,"
Nardone said. "However, if you want police, if you want fire, if you
want Wrentham on the map, you have to pay."
Matt Viser of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
Return to top
The Salem News
Friday, March 31, 2006
Weekly political column
By Nelson Benton
[ . . . ]
State Rep. John Keenan, D-Salem, is among those hailing the effort to
lift the so-called "Lottery cap," which would direct all money raised by
the Massachusetts Lottery to cities and towns.
The move, also recommended by the governor, has been endorsed by the
House Ways and Means Committee. Combined with proposed increases in
educational assistance, it would increase the amount of money allocated
to municipalities by almost a billion dollars in the fiscal year that
begins July 1.
The boost, as Keenan pointed out, couldn't come at a better time for
Salem which is struggling with a multi-million-dollar deficit left over
from the previous administration that has resulted in layoffs in the
schools and other departments.
A major question, of course, is whether the Legislature will see fit to
make the lifting of the cap permanent or retain the right to dip into
the Lottery's growing pile of cash from time to time. The Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation is already warning that the proposed increase in
local aid eliminates "essentially all of the fiscal flexibility created
by the recent strong growth in tax revenues," and says this level of
assistance will be difficult to sustain in the future, especially if the
Legislature approves a costly health-care program.
* * *
Speaking of the health-care bill, here's the
Citizens for Limited Taxation take on the proposed House-Senate
compromise:
"Adding a new $295 tax for companies that do not provide health
insurance is adding another bad tax to an existing bad tax.
Massachusetts should repeal the $62 (currently assessed against those
who do provide insurance), and not assess the $295. ... If the final
bill looks like the bill that is presently being floated, Governor
Romney should veto it, then address it as president of the United
States."
Nelson Benton's political column appears every Friday in this space.
Return to top
Health Care Bill:
Fearing The Worst [Politicus #890]
Thursday, March 30, 2006
By David Mittell, Jr.
Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner were widely criticized in 1993 and '94
for trying to remake the vast, anarchic financing of the American
health-care system in secret, behind closed White House doors. With
high-minded intentions, the first lady showed she didn't then understand
the basic workings of the democratic process.
In Massachusetts in 2006, Salvatore DiMasi and Robert Travaglini --
respectively, the House speaker and the Senate president -- have made
Mrs. Clinton's penchant for secrecy seem tame. With the first half of a
two-year, $770 million federal Medicaid grant at risk of being forfeited
if the state can't come up with a health-care bill in a matter of weeks,
the two men shut out all but a few special interests from their many
weeks of discussions.
Teaching hospitals have reportedly been in on the plan, as has the
Massachusetts Taxpayers' Foundation, which, despite its name, represents
big business. But the public doesn't know what's going on, rank-and-file
legislators haven't known what's going on, and Governor Romney has been
saying he doesn't know what's going on.
Finally, on April 3, Messrs. DiMasi and Travaglini held a press
conference to announce the release of a 145-page bill, designed to
increase the number of insured in the state, which the two of them now
agree on. The House and Senate are expected to act quickly -- possibly
voting by the time this article goes to press. Mr. Romney -- his
governorship increasingly subordinated to the calculus of his ambition
-- is not expected to veto a bill that would, for the time being at
least, make him seem effective.
The purpose of the federal "demonstration grant" Massachusetts currently
stands to lose is to encourage this state, then others in the future, to
increase the number of citizens with health insurance. With a $385
million forfeiture betiding almost immediately, there will be enormous
pressure on legislators to vote for the bill, and for Mr. Romney to sign
it, without having much of a clue as to what's in it.
For the last four weeks the governor has been saying he could only
speculate on what would be in the bill. He may have known more than he
was letting on. But if he was kept even partly in the dark about what
was being negotiated -- leaving the public, as we know, completely in
the dark -- it was a travesty. A miscarriage of the democratic process,
and with dangerous ramifications.
With its world-renowned medical and educational institutions,
Massachusetts is the ideal think tank for innovation in the economics of
medicine. But what we are witnessing -- conniving in secret, then voting
under duress -- is the worst possible way to do it, with every
likelihood of a fiasco the taxpayer will be stuck with long after this
crop of political leaders has departed.
We may have a somewhat better idea of what the DiMasi-Travaglini
agreement contains before the legislature votes. But we are not likely
to have sufficiently debated its provisions, nor to have thought through
its future ramifications. Based on my speaking with legislators and
health-care activists, who could, of course, only speculate, here is the
scenario I think we ought to worry about:
-- The bill is a sop to the powerful -- it protects big business and
rewards big, profitable hospitals with big rate increases.
-- It does not protect small business and small hospitals. It introduces
an initially small $295 tax per worker per year on the labor of
businesses not providing health insurance.
-- It theoretically increases the number of insured, but has no way of
assuring that the expanded coverage is reasonably comprehensive. It
becomes, rather, a giveaway to insurance companies, and a bad deal for
the newly insured.
-- It doesn't appropriate enough money to provide good insurance. Its
mandate for expanded coverage thus becomes what one legislator called
"the camel's nose in the tent." When, in a year or two, the new plan is
broke, without doing enough for the formerly uninsured, it will need a
massive infusion of new cash, including a big increase in the
$295-a-year tax on the labor of non-participating businesses.
-- It creates a new bureaucracy with the impossible mandate of effecting
top-down, bureaucratic "cost control." This entity doesn't control
costs, but rather itself becomes a big cost.
I don't like to speculate and I don't like to be cynical about the work
of fellow human beings. But the disgraceful lack of forthrightness by
the leaders of the two houses and whomever they may have been confiding
in leaves me to fear the very worst.
David Mittell is a regular columnist for the Patriot Ledger, the
Providence (RI) Journal, and frequently others newspapers around
Massachusetts.
Return to top
State House News Service
Monday, April 3, 2006
House, senate accord requires
big health insurance access expansion
By Amy Lambiaso
Nearly five months after beginning negotiations, House and Senate
leaders on Monday afternoon outlined a bipartisan health accord aimed at
covering 515,000 uninsured individuals within three years.
The bill requires all residents to buy or retain health insurance
coverage by July 1, 2007 as long as affordable coverage is available, a
determination that would be made by the state Department of Revenue. It
is intended to deliver coverage to 95 percent of the uninsured, and does
so in part by assessing both a new surcharge and a "free rider" charge
on certain businesses not now paying for insurance.
The 145-page conference committee agreement will be put before the House
and Senate Tuesday for up-or-down votes and could reach Gov. Mitt
Romney's desk tomorrow. Legislative leaders said the bill is designed to
control costs, expand coverage and maximize federal funding, and
continue high quality care.
"This is a very historic moment in Massachusetts," House Speaker
Salvatore DiMasi said during a press conference with members of the
conference committee outside the House chamber.
Following the report's filing at 1:53 pm, DiMasi briefed his colleagues
at a two-hour bipartisan caucus.
Two hours after lawmakers announced the accord, Romney called the press
to his briefing room to congratulate legislators and identify the areas
of similarity between what he proposed last year and a bill that
lawmakers say may represent a model for the rest of the nation.
"The backbone of the bill is very much in line with what we proposed,"
the governor said, noting that he had not yet seen the entire text of
the legislation. "The program to get everybody insured, with the idea of
a personal responsibility principle, and dividing people in these groups
as we have, and reforming the health insurance market is exactly what we
proposed and that's what the bill does."
DiMasi cautioned that should the bill be signed into law, implementation
will require cooperation across a spectrum, including the state and
federal governments, health care providers and insurers, employers and
individuals. Resistance from any group will threaten the bill's
ambitious objective, he said.
"This is only the beginning," said DiMasi. "If people resist this bill,
it will not be successful."
The program will cost $1.2 billion, although its supporters say the vast
majority of that money, including federal revenues and assessments on
employers and insurers, is already being spent in the system.
Conference committee negotiators say the plan requires $125 million in
new state money for each of the first three years of implementation,
along with $184 million in federal contributions. After three years,
lawmakers say the plan will be "revenue neutral," meaning additional
state money would not be required.
During the next three years, the plan calls for reduced reliance on the
state-administered Uncompensated Care Pool, which reimburses health care
providers who treat the uninsured. Pool payments are projected to fall
from $897 million in fiscal 2007 to $680 million in fiscal 2008 and $480
million in 2009.
As dependency on the pool drops, the state plans to increase spending on
insurance subsidies from $160 million in fiscal 2007 to $725 million in
fiscal 2009, according to a balance sheet provided by conference
committee staff. Additionally, the plan increases state spending on
Medicaid from $150 million to nearly $360 million during that same time
period.
The bills will cost $58 million this fiscal year, including start-up
costs, investments in public health programs.
Hospitals and physicians will see a $90 million hike through fiscal 2009
in Medicaid payments, with those payments tied to performance measures
during fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
"This is not the House bill, it's not the Senate bill, it's our bill
now," said Sen. Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge).
Rep. Patricia Walrath (D-Stow) added: "We're just pleased that it's over
with."
Lawmakers say they have worked with representatives of health plan
associations, who say they will likely be able to develop a quality
product for roughly $200 a month that will require a $1,000 deductible.
Those figures will be determined by the so-called Commonwealth Care
Health Insurance Connector Authority, a new authority chaired by the
Secretary of Administration and Finance that will coordinate delivery of
new insurance products to businesses and individuals. The connector will
submit cost estimates and product descriptions to the Legislature for
approval.
A big question mark hanging over the bill is whether Romney will sign
off on a new assessment on employers who don't offer insurance. Under
the legislation, companies with more than 10 employees that do not offer
insurance will be required to pay $295 per-employee into a
state-controlled fund. All employers will be required to pay $62 a-head,
a fee they are currently charged.
Additionally, if employees at non-offering companies do not purchase
affordable insurance on their own and have their health care paid for
under the Uncompensated Care Pool, their companies will be charged an
additional assessment. That "free-rider" surcharge is applicable only if
employees rack up a treatment bill of $50,000 collectively, and if an
employee requires treatment at least three times.
When asked about the per-employee assessment, Romney said he does not
consider it a tax. "It's not a tax hike. It is a fee. It's an
assessment."
Romney added: "We are where we'd hoped we'd be, in a place where every
citizen in Massachusetts will have health insurance, without a
government takeover, without a big new tax program, and it's private,
market-based health insurance. This is what we'd hoped to have and
that's what we got."
Several conferees at today's press event admitted that they were
surprised to be standing together with an agreement. Lawmakers, both in
the conference committee and outside, said negotiations broke down
several times since last November when the House and Senate passed
different versions of a plan.
"I have to tell you all that I'm actually surprised that we're here,"
said conferee Sen. Brian Lees (R-East Longmeadow). "I want everyone here
to know that there has been give and take on both sides."
On the House side, Republican conferee Rep. Robert Hargraves (R-Groton),
also recognized the number of compromises that were required to reach a
final agreement, but said the final product is one everyone should
support.
"I will be supporting this bill right straight through," he said. "I
might get some flack, I don't know."
At times, the negotiations were said to strain relationships between
DiMasi and Senate President Robert Travaglini, who are longtime friends.
Today, Travaglini joked about that evolution.
"When this began, I had six friends," he said. "I do not know if I'd put
them in the same category today as they were when we began these
discussions."
Lawmakers have sparred over the timing of the bill, with pressure from
the federal government to withhold $385 million in Medicaid money if the
legislation does not comply with provisions in a federal waiver. Federal
officials have asked for at least 120 days to review the new plan prior
to the July 1 implementation date; that time period has since passed.
Today, Romney said he was confident the plan would meet the federal
government's requirements, but cautioned that reviewers are likely to
have suggestions or changes to make.
"I'm pretty confident that we'll continue to be in line to receive
support from the federal government," he said. "This is very much what
we proposed to them and they found very attractive."
State leaders have also said they were told by federal officials that
expanding the state's Medicaid programs would not be acceptable, but
lawmakers have increased the income eligibility for children to receive
MassHealth benefits to cover roughly 27,000 additional children. The
plan also restores MassHealth dental and vision services, and coverage
for chiropractic services and prosthetics.
When asked if the federal government will go along with those additional
programs, Moore said other states have been successful in expanding
those programs with the federal government's approval.
"They've already said they would approve that in other states," he said.
"I don't know why they wouldn't do that for us as well."
The legislative plan establishes Commonwealth Care Health Insurance, an
insurance program that offers subsidies to income-eligible residents.
Premiums are set up on a sliding income scale, with residents earning
less than 300 percent of the federal poverty level ($38,500 annually for
a family of two) eligible. Those earning less than 100 percent of the
poverty level ($9,600 a year for an individual) will not be required to
pay a premium.
Under the bill, individuals will be required to purchase an affordable
product by July 1, 2007. Beginning with income tax forms filed in 2008,
residents will be asked to verify coverage and forfeit their personal
exemption for that year if they have not purchased an affordable
product. Some residents could be eligible for a one-year waiver of that
penalty, lawmakers said.
After the first year, residents not purchasing affordable insurance will
be charged one-half the cost of the most affordable product.
The Department of Revenue will be charged with writing regulations and
overseeing many portions of the individual mandate's implementation.
Several other state agencies, such as the Division of Insurance, the
Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, and the Department of Public
Health are also charged with writing certain regulations.
Because this is an appropriations bill, the governor has the ability to
issue line-item vetoes to certain provisions, and offer amendments to
individual provisions.
"I'd also note that by offering praise as I do for this day and this
accomplishment, it doesn't mean that everything in the bill is exactly
how I'd like it," Romney said. "My guess is that out of 140 pages, there
may be something or more than something I'd like to change."
Additional highlights in the legislation:
-
Raises enrollment caps on existing programs,
including MassHealth Essential, CommonHealth, and HIV programs;
Return to top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|