The leader of Mississippi’s Medicaid program warned taxpayers Monday that the long-term health of the program is in jeopardy absent reform.
Drew Snyder is the Executive Director of the state Division of Medicaid and he told the Stennis Capitol Press Forum that the national program is unsustainable long term unless “we continue to refine our approach.”
He also cited data from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that says if nothing is done by 2026, one of every five dollars spent in this country will be on health care.
One of the reasons for these increasing costs is that 36 states have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Since the ACA dictates that the federal government cover 90 percent of the costs for expanding eligibility to all individuals earning less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level, the impact to the program’s bottom line is worsening.
Medicaid costs for expansion adults only, according to the CMM, were expected to be $855 billion in new federal spending between 2017 and 2026. That would add up to more than 10,000 F-35 fighter aircraft ($85 million flyaway cost).
Expanding Medicaid eligibility in Mississippi has become a campaign issue in the gubernatorial race, as Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves opposes it and all of the Democratic contenders, including Attorney General Jim Hood, support expansion.
One problem is that Medicaid expansion will cost state taxpayers more than expected. The state Institutes for Higher Education did a study in 2015 that said that it’d cost the state $159.1 million per year by 2025 if 95 percent of the eligible population participated in the expansion (310,039 enrollees).
“A number of states that expanded Medicaid have all made estimates and they’ve all been wrong,” Snyder said. “Louisiana was more than expected. Virginia had more enroll than expected. The numbers vary pretty significantly.”
According to a report by the Louisiana-based Pelican Institute, the state expected 306,000 new enrollees when it expanded Medicaid eligibility, but that number has ballooned to 502,647 according to recent data from the Louisiana Department of Health.
Right now, the federal government pays 76.6 percent of most medical costs and anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of administrative costs. In Mississippi, the program covers 674,000 enrollees, with 56 percent of them children and less than 10 percent of them able-bodied adults. Medicaid covers costs on 67 percent of all births in the state.
Under Synder’s leadership, the agency won’t ask for a deficit appropriation from the legislature for the first time in three years and overall state spending on Medicaid is down 9.4 percent less than it was three years ago.
In fiscal 2016, the state spent more than a billion dollars on Medicaid. This fiscal year, which starts July 1, the agency asked for an appropriation of more than $938 million.
Synder says that one reason for that is decreased enrollment in the program due to an improved economy. He said his division has also eliminated non-critical conducts, come up with a more precise budgets, provided better oversight over vendors and aggressively sought to cut excess spending in the program, including decreasing the division’s workforce by four percent.
A new report outlines the continued generosity of Mississippians.
While many complain that Mississippi is usually first on the bad lists and last on the good lists, Mississippians have always been recognized for their generosity. Another report confirms this.
The Fraser Institute’s Generosity Index measures charitable donations as recorded on personal income tax returns in Canada and the United States.
Because the Fraser Institute is based in Canada, this report tracks donations from Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories, as well as the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The data is from the 2016 tax year.
The repot calculates the percentage of tax filers donating to charity, the percentage of aggregate income donated to charity, and the average annual charitable donation.
Mississippians gave 1.67 percent of their income to charity, which was good enough for 10th among the 64 states and provinces. Utah was first at 3.18 percent, followed by Georgia (2.31), Arkansas (2.07), Alabama (1.86), and Idaho (1.78).
The average annual charitable donation was $7,135, which was good enough for 13th. Wyoming was first with $12,991, followed by Arkansas ($10,935), Utah ($10,165), South Dakota ($10,020), and Tennessee ($8,644).
The report also showcased the noticeable differences between giving in the United States and Canada. The 13 Canadian provinces and territories took 13 of the bottom 14 spots when it came to percentage of aggregate income donated to charity. West Virginia’s 0.74 percent was slightly below Manitoba’s 0.76 percent.
But on average annual donation, the Canadian provinces and territories took the bottom 14 places.
Gov. Phil Bryant joined officials from Kohler Industries Tuesday to celebrate a $20 million expansion of the Wisconsin-based company’s Hattiesburg facility.
Just a few miles away, both the Forrest County Board of Supervisors and the Hattiesburg City Council held separate meetings before the governor’s news conference.
The two government bodies met to approve a settlement with Kohler that will require the county and city to reimburse it for $1.2 million in tax payments, according to a story in the Hub City Spokes.
According to Tammy Craft from the Mississippi Development Authority, Kohler will receive $2.6 million to relocate equipment and $300,000 for workforce training from state taxpayers. The city and county are providing tax exemptions and assistance for infrastructure improvements.
The company says it’ll be consolidating its North American manufacturing operations from Wisconsin to Hattiesburg, where the company will lease an additional 300,000 square feet where failed solar panel manufacturer Stion was located.
The company will continue to manufacture small, twin-cylinder engines for use in zero-turn and residential lawn mowers and the new facility is supposed to create 250 full-time jobs. The state incentives alone add up to $11,600 per job.
Stion closed its Hattiesburg operation in 2017 and still owes state and local taxpayers more than $93 million in incentives.
Kohler, Forrest County and the city of Hattiesburg reached a deal in 1996 to lure the company, which built a small engine manufacturing plant in the Forrest County Industrial Park. The city and county denied a Kohler an exemption on its taxes in the 2010 tax year after honoring it from 1998 to 2009.
Kohler sued in 2014, asking for a full refund on the taxes the company paid since 2010. The agreement says the taxpayers will pay for the settlement, interest free, over a 10-year period.
The company asked for $2 million in its lawsuit.
Few items can unify Americans more than a universal disdain for the government.
A recent Axios Harris Poll tracked the reputation of the most visible brands in America to find who is the most liked, and the most disliked. The scores were broken down into several categories: affinity, ethics, growth, products/ service, citizenship, vision, culture, character, trajectory.
Wegmans, a supermarket chain in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, topped the list. They were followed by Amazon, Patagonia, L.L. Bean, and Walt Disney.
On the other end of the spectrum? The U.S. government, coming in dead last, behind a tobacco company, a bank with a fake accounts scandal, a bankrupt retail chain, and the Trump organization.
And there is no partisan divide. Republicans ranked the government 95, Democrats ranked it 98, and independents ranked it dead last. Among category scores, the government came in between 96 and 100 on each. Although to be fair, the growth rating of 98th is a little low. If there is one thing the government is doing, it is growing.
The survey represents a national sample, and was conducted from November through January. The first group, 6,118 adults, was asked to identify two companies they believe have the best and worst reputations. Then, the 100 “most visible companies” were ranked by a second group of 18,228 adults.
Wednesday was the fourth big deadline in the Mississippi legislature for general, non-revenue, bills to be approved by the entire opposite chamber.
The next deadline for legislation is Tuesday, the final day for floor action on appropriations and revenue bills from the other chamber.
Here are the some of the bills that survived and others that died:
Still alive
House Bill 1352 is sponsored by state Rep. Jason White (R-West) and is known as the Criminal Justice Reform Act. The bill would clear obstacles for the formerly incarcerated to find work, prevents driver’s license suspensions for controlled substance violations and unpaid legal fees and fines, and updates drug court laws to allow for additional types of what are known as problem solving courts.
The bill passed the Senate by a 49-2 margin. The bill will have to go to conference with the House to iron out the differences between the original and the altered version that passed the Senate.
House Bill 1205 would prohibit state agencies from requesting or releasing donor information on charitable groups organized under section 501 of federal tax law. The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Jerry Turner (R-Baldwyn), was passed by a 32 to 18 margin in the Senate margin after being amended to include all organizations covered by section 501 of federal tax law.
SB 2781, known as Mississippi Fresh Start Act, is sponsored by state Sen. John Polk (R-Hattiesburg). This bill would eliminate the practice of “good character” or “moral turpitude” clauses from occupational licensing regulations, which prohibit ex-felons from receiving an occupational license and starting a new post-incarceration career.
The bill was amended with a strike-all that made it identical to the original House bill. The bill was passed by the House by a 114-2 margin and was amended twice more on the floor, meaning the differences between the present guise of the bill and the original will have to be settled in a conference committee later in the session.
SB 2901, known as the Landowner Protection Act, would exempt property owners and their employees from civil liability if a third party injures someone else on their property.
The bill is sponsored by state Sen. Josh Harkins (R-Flowood). The bill has been returned to the Senate for concurrence. If the Senate doesn’t agree with the changes by the House, the two sides will have to settle their differences with the bill in a conference committee.
SB 2603 would reauthorize motion picture and television production incentives for out-of-state firms that expired in 2017.
The bill sponsored by state Sen. Joey Fillingane (R-Sumrall). The bill was passed by the House on March 7 by a 101- 16 margin and has been returned to the Senate for concurrence.
HB 1612 would authorize municipalities to create special improvement assessment districts that would be authorized to levy up to 6 mills of property tax (the amount per $1,000 of assessed value of the property) to fund parks, sidewalks, streets, planting, lighting, fountains, security enhancements and even private security services. The tax would require the approval of 60 percent of property owners in the district.
The bill is sponsored by state Rep. Mark Baker (R-Brandon) and passed the House 93-22 Thursday after failing to get a two-thirds majority on its first pass on the floor. It’s been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
HB 1204 would allow a municipality or county to execute the winning bid in a sealed bidding process if a judge hasn’t ruled on a protection request for bids within 90 days. The bill is sponsored by state Rep. Turner and was passed by the Senate on Tuesday.
More dead than fanny packs
HB 702 would’ve allowed cottage food operators to increase their maximum sales to $35,000 and advertise their products on the web. The bill was sponsored by state Rep. Casey Eure (R-Saucier) and didn’t get a vote in the Senate despite passing the House by a 117-0 margin.
HB 1268 would’ve clarified state law regarding constitutional challenges to local ordinances. With local circuit courts acting as both the appellate body for appeals on specific decisions (such as bid disputes) and the court of original jurisdiction, there’s been confusion among judges regarding the law that governs challenges of local decisions, which are required within 10 days.
City and county attorneys have used this 10-day requirement on decisions to get new constitutional challenges — which are new lawsuits and not appeals of decisions — thrown out of circuit courts. This law would’ve added language that would prevent application of the 10-day requirement to constitutional challenges.
The bill was sponsored by state Rep. Dana Criswell (R-Southaven).
The recent scandal regarding celebrities and the elite class and the college admissions of their children has riled up many as we wonder about the deserving child who was left out in favor of an undeserving child.
But even before this scandal, we knew Americans believed the primary consideration for college admissions should be high school grades.
This common belief runs directly against the narrative of Ivy League institutions, and many others, where the trap of identity-based admissions has affected both the highest and lower margins of applicants. However, this belief has reached the point where one ethnic group is being discriminated against simply for being exceptionally talented at achieving high grades.
Affirmative action was designed to provide a remedy to long-standing discrimination allowing schools “considerable deference” in how they select students. This concept of considerations to race and identity in education has been debated extensively in the courts.
These court battles began in 1978 with University of California v. Bakke to Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which may soon make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The latter case is redefining the generational debate about affirmative action. Unlike other cases, which have questioned if students on the margins can be rejected so that diversity may be preserved at universities, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard asks if minority students that excel, can be discriminated against because of their race, specifically Asian students.
Harvard contends that the lawsuit is frivolous as Asians make up roughly six percent of the national population while making up more than 17 percent of Harvard students. Yet Harvard’s own argument is used against it by Students for Fair Admissions, who contend that Harvard’s knowledge of this led the university to discriminate against highly qualified Asian applicants in favor of non-Asian students. Essentially, Harvard’s case is that they have too many Asians.
While schools are granted privilege to foster “equality” in admissions, courts have consistently denied any effort to employ quotas or “racial-balancing” in admission considerations. If the accusations against Harvard are true, it is likely the U.S. Supreme Court will find the university went beyond the law. Regardless, the ruling here will likely have a big impact on future cases involving race-based, university admission policies.
Harvard does make a very good point in its lawsuit; they suffer from an over-representation of exceptionally talented applicants for admission. How awful it must be for them.
Suggesting that some people are just “too good” to be Harvard students could be seen as a symptom of the current times, yet it is more likely this sort of discrimination is a byproduct of the current structure of affirmative action. Diversity in education has proven to be beneficial, but not when the definition of diversity is narrowly confined to the color of skin or the country of origin. When diversity is programmatically enforced by an intentionally vague policy, you can bet actual diversity is not the goal; alterations to student populations based on emotional appeals are.
Such admission policies can be incredibly dangerous to colleges and Harvard has emerged as the face of it. Asian students often outperform white students (and every other race and ethnicity) on academic and extracurricular metrics. This is no secret in the Ivy League community, yet they lag far behind on personal appeals. The mysterious conglomeration of factors, which qualifies some to be Ivy League material and others not, is curiously subjective. And the plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions, have made the argument that such policy is inherently discriminatory.
Students, regardless of who they are and where they come from, should be judged by their academic records, their extracurricular accomplishments, and their personal references from school officials/teachers/coaches who know them best, not by arbitrary factors. The result of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard will likely impact admissions policy significantly. Let’s hope it rewards students who apply for admission based on the quality of their records and not the color of their skin or the country of their origin.
A bill that could protect the donor lists of non-profit organizations was passed by the Senate before deadline on Tuesday.
House Bill 1205 would prohibit state agencies from requesting or releasing donor information on charitable groups organized under section 501 of federal tax law. Some of these groups can engage in political activity.
The bill, which is sponsored by state Rep. Jerry Turner (R-Baldwyn) was originally written to include all of the different 501(c) designations. The bill was amended in the Senate Accountability, Efficiency, Transparency Committee for the bill’s protections to only include 501(c)(3) organizations, which are prohibited from political activity.
A floor amendment changed the bill’s language back to that in the original House language and removed a reverse repealer, which is a legislative tactic on a bill designed to keep alive and invite further discussion by preventing it from becoming law.
“It is an honor to support legislation that prevents corruption and intimidation by protecting the right of people to give to nonprofits of their choice and to prevent the politicization of the right of individuals to give to the causes they hold dear,” said state Sen. Jenifer Branning (R-Philadelphia).
State Rep. Mark Baker (R-Brandon) was one of the bill’s co-sponsors in the House and presented it on the floor. He said it’s an issue that cuts both ways and isn’t aimed at just right-leaning 501(c) groups.
“The right associated to privately contribute to non-profits anonymously, to me, is critical to the exercise of the First Amendment,” Baker said. “Protecting this right is crucial to the health and the freedom of our society. There are groups that do things that I don’t agree with, but I agree that they have the right to keep their donors private.”
Several Democrat senators railed against the amended bill, which passed the Senate on a largely party line vote of 32 to 18.
“If you pass this amendment, you will open the biggest loophole since we passed campaign finance disclosure in Mississippi,” said state Sen. David Blount (D-Jackson). “If you pass this amendment, you are saying that 501(c)(4)s can get involved with your campaign or your opponent’s campaign.
“As long as they don’t expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, they can do whatever they want and not disclose anything.”
State Sen. David Jordan (D-Greenwood) was even more strident in his criticism of the amendment.
“The only difference between this amendment and Jesse James is you need a horse,” Jordan said. “This really hurts the system. We have enough corruption at the national level and now you want to bring it to the state level and that’s wrong.”
HB 1205 is being held on a motion to reconsider, which means the Senate will have until Friday to send it to the House for concurrence since it was changed.
If the House concurs with the changes, the bill will go to Gov. Phil Bryant. If not, the two chambers will have to settle their differences in a conference committee.
According to federal law, 501(c)(3) groups have to disclose their donor lists to the IRS, which are not disclosed on publicly available tax filings. These organizations are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions, but can’t engage in direct political activity.
The IRS recently changed its regulations in July to remove donor lists from the publicly-available tax forms for 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) organizations. Changing the rules for 501(c)(3) organizations would require action by Congress.