Report on Homelessness
Section 84 [as it relates to homelessness] requires DILJD to maintain a record detailing statistics on the homelessness of W-2 participants. I am exercising the partial veto of this section to remove this reporting requirement. I do not believe that this requirement was carefully constructed. It is unclear when or for how long this information should be collected. It will not shed any light on the W-2 program if this information is collected as people come into the W-2 office. If the intent was to see if the W-2 program had an impact on homelessness, it is more helpful to look at information from homeless shelters and transitional housing programs. Data are already being collected and compiled on the people using these services by the Department of Administration's Division on Housing. This Division will be able to compile information on the W-2 population as it is implemented.
Emergency Assistance Program
Section 83e continues the current AFDC Emergency Assistance program after W-2 is implemented with one modification. In addition, DILJD would be required to submit a report to the Legislature within 12 months of the implementation of W-2 on the interaction of the this program with the W-2 program. I am exercising the partial veto in this section to remove the reporting requirement as it is administratively burdensome to the department. I am, however, maintaining the emergency assistance program beyond the start of the W-2 program in order to continue to provide assistance to needy families with dependent children in the cases of fire, flood, natural disaster, homelessness or energy crisis.
Kinship Care and Health Insurance
Sections 70d and 70g specify that DHFS, in consultation with DILJD, shall determine whether a kinship care child is eligible for Medical Assistance (MA) only if no other health care insurance is available to the child. DHFS's intent was to make kinship care children immediately eligible for MA as they do for children in foster care. Just as in foster care, the parents of the kinship care child will still be required to initiate or continue health care insurance coverage for the child as part of their child support obligation. I am exercising the partial veto in these sections to ensure that the kinship care provider does not have to bear any costs related to the child's medical care and to ensure that there is no gap in the child's health care coverage if the parent is not complying with the child support order.
Food Stamp Employment and Training Requirements
Section 79 specifies that the maximum number of hours that an individual may be required to participate in the Food Stamp Employment and Training (FSET) program may not exceed the amount of food stamp benefits divided by the federal minimum wage or 40 hours per week, whichever is less. I am exercising a partial veto of this section to remove the language related to the minimum wage calculation. This language will limit the department's ability to require participation in FSET activities. For example, the maximum food stamp benefit for a single adult is $119 per month. Using the minimum wage formula would result in this individual only being required to participate for seven hours per week. This minimal level of participation may not lead to self-sufficiency.
Criminal Background Checks
Sections 71d, 71m [as it relates to the petition process] and 75 require criminal background investigations of kinship care providers, certified day care providers, licensed day care providers and any employees or adult residents who live in the homes of the providers. Also specified is a list of the criminal convictions that an applicant cannot have on his or her record if applying for a kinship care payment or day care certification or license. An individual who is denied a kinship care payment, certification or licensure based on the criminal background investigation may petition DHSS for a review of that denial. I am exercising a partial veto of the provisions related to the petition process. The statutes are very clear and explicit regarding an applicant's conviction record. In addition, current statutes already provide due process rights to all licensure applicants under s.
48.715. Certification applicants may take a grievance to the county department under Chapter
62. In addition, I am directing the Secretary of DHFS to recommend the best method for individuals to make appeals for the entire kinship care program, not just for an appeal regarding the criminal background check. This is a larger issue that is not addressed in the W-2 legislation.
Section 71m [as it relates to employees of a day care center] also specifies that the department must complete a background investigation of each employee and prospective employee of a licensed day care center. This language is substantially different from what I proposed or what was in Senate Substitute Amendment 1 to SB24 which states that the applicant or licensee, with the assistance with the Department of Justice, shall conduct a background investigation of each employee or prospective employee of the applicant or licensee. I am partially vetoing this section in order to require the day care applicant or licensee to perform the background investigation of each employee or prospective employee, not the department. The language as written would impose a significant new workload on the department. This should instead be the responsibility of the licensed day care center as part of their licensure.
Nonstatutory Provision on Administrative Rules for W-2
Section 275 [as it relates to rules for the administration of W-2] directs DILJD to promulgate rules on the qualification criteria for the administration of the Wisconsin Works program without the finding of an emergency. I am partially vetoing the words "qualification criteria" in section 275 (3) (title) because the department needs emergency rulemaking authority for the administration of all of the W-2 program. This is primarily a technical correction.
State Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Supplement
A1096
Sections 175 and 209 create a separate supplemental payment under the state's SSI program for custodial parents who receive SSI and who have dependent children. The supplement was intended to replace the AFDC payment that the child is currently receiving, once W-2 is implemented. The child was to continue to receive Medical Assistance coverage. Unfortunately, these sections do not reflect the Administration's intent. A federal waiver is necessary before the department can make this supplemental SSI payment in lieu of an AFDC payment for the child. I am vetoing these sections because the provision in AB591 would require the department to make this payment beginning July 1, 1996 whether the waiver had been approved or not and whether the dependent child was receiving AFDC or not. I am directing the department to pursue the legislation needed to implement the provision as originally intended.
Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs)
Sections 250, 250m and 279 [as it relates to qualifying coverage definition] include provisions on high cost-share benefit plans that are linked to a tax-preferred savings plan for payment of medical expenses, which are often referred to as medical savings accounts. Under AB591, portability of coverage and guaranteed acceptance rights would be limited for MSAs under certain circumstances. If a person has had a MSA within 60 days of the effective date of his or her new job's health care coverage, and that new coverage includes a choice between a MSA and group health coverage, and the employee chooses to switch to a group health care plan, portability of coverage and guaranteed acceptance rights are not available. I am exercising the partial veto in these sections to remove any reference to high cost-share benefit plans that are linked to a tax-preferred savings plan for payment of medical expenses, including the portability and guaranteed acceptance restrictions for several reasons. First, tax-exempt MSAs have not yet been created at either the federal or state level. AB591 does not create MSAs either; it only provided for a limit on MSA portability and guaranteed acceptance in the event that other legislation is passed that creates the MSAs. I have been involved in discussions at the federal level on this issue and it is not clear to me that the federal legislation creating MSAs will pass in the near future. Furthermore, the state Legislature is currently debating a bill (AB545) that would create MSAs in Wisconsin. Any limits on the portability or guaranteed acceptance of MSAs should be included with the legislation that actually creates the MSAs. I do not believe it is appropriate to retain this language in the statutes in anticipation of the passage of a MSA bill.
I believe that these partial vetoes make a good piece of legislation even better. We can now move forward to implement this pathbreaking welfare reform measure.
Sincerely,
Tommy G. Thompson
Governor
__________________
Communications
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Secretary of State
Madison
To Whom It May Concern:
Acts, Joint Resolutions and Resolutions deposited in this office have been numbered and published as follows:
Bill Number Act Number Publication Date
Assembly Bill 188214April 30, 1996
Assembly Bill 491217April 30, 1996
Assembly Bill 451218April 30, 1996
Assembly Bill 685219April 30, 1996
Assembly Bill 183228May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 238229May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 511230May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 532231May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 544232May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 642233May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 644234May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 811235May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 836236May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 955237May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 1028237May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 841249May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 579250May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 344251May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 40252May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 570253May 2, 1996
Assembly Bill 690254May 2, 1996
Sincerely,
Douglas La Follette
Secretary of State
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Revisor of Statutes Bureau
Madison
May 1, 1996
Charles R. Sanders
Assembly Chief Clerk
Donna Doyle
Senate Chief Clerk's Office
The following rules have been published:
Sincerely,
Gary L. Poulson
Deputy Revisor
__________________
A1097
Referral of Agency Reports
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
Madison
February 1996
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
Pursuant to section 153.10(1), Wis. Stats., we are pleased to submit to the Governor and to the Legislature the sixth annual Health Care Data Report. This report is based on hospital inpatient discharge data reported to the Office of Health Care Information by all operating general medical-surgical and specialty hospitals in Wisconsin from January through December 1994. It also contains selected ambulatory surgery utilization and charge data from general medical-surgical hospitals and freestanding ambulatory surgery centers in Wisconsin during the same period.
This report fulfills the statutory requirement to report "in a manner that permits comparisons among hospitals ... the charges for up to 100 health care services or diagnostic-related groups selected by the office.
Sincerely,
josephine W. musser
Commissioner of Insurance
Trudy A. Karlson, Ph.d.
Director
Office of Health Care Information
Referred to committee on Health.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction
Madison
