45. Temporary License Plates
Sections 3961p, 3971g, 3971h, 3971hb, 3972jm, 4036g, 9349 (9sm) and 9449 (8nm)
A342
These provisions require local police departments to issue temporary license plates to state residents registering automobiles, station wagons, or motor trucks having a registered weight of 8,000 pounds or less that have not been purchased from automobile dealers. These state residents may also obtain temporary license plates from the Department of Transportation.
I am vetoing these provisions because they would cause an additional administrative burden for local police departments throughout the state. State government should be trying to reduce local mandates, not increase them. However, I understand the concern that many individuals are not located near the department's motor vehicle service centers and therefore may have a difficult time obtaining temporary license plates. For this reason, I am requesting the department to review options for distributing temporary license plates to individuals who do not purchase vehicles from automobile dealers.
46. Replacement of State Highway Signs
These sections require the Department of Transportation to establish administrative rules that allow the public to petition the department for the replacement of a sign on the state trunk highway system that has been damaged or is in need of replacement due to age. A successful petitioner may either pay a private firm to produce and replace the sign or pay the department for its replacement cost.
I am vetoing this provision because it creates an unnecessary administrative procedure at a time when administrative staffing levels and funding are being reduced. Individuals may already request that the department replace old or damaged state highway signs. A formalized procedure will delay the replacement of signs and create additional administrative costs.
47. Overweight Permit Exemption
Section 4180m
This section allows the Department of Transportation to issue annual or consecutive month permits for the transportation of bulk potatoes from storage facilities to food processing facilities in vehicles that exceed maximum gross weight limitations by not more than 10,000 pounds on USH 51 from STH 29 to STH 64 and on Interstate 39 from STH 29 to Interstate 90/94.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the word "not" and the phrase "highways designated as part of the national highway system of interstate and defense highways, except on" because they are unnecessary. The bill only authorizes the issuance of this permit on USH 51 between Merrill and Wausau and on I-39 from Wausau to Portage. While this provision authorizes the issuance of this permit under state law, federal law prohibits the issuance of these types of permits. I did not eliminate the intent of this provision because federal law may be modified under the transportation reauthorization bill currently before Congress to allow this type of vehicle movement. If federal law is changed, Wisconsin will be in a position to immediately allow these types of permits without further statutory changes.
48. Fees for State Patrol Services
Sections 499, 851, 2484 and 2484m
These sections allow the State Patrol to charge a fee to sponsors of special events, except Farm Progress Days, to recoup costs of providing security and traffic enforcement services.
I am partially vetoing sections 499, 851 and 2484 and vetoing section 2484m to remove the prohibition against charging sponsors of Farm Progress Days for security and traffic enforcement services because it is unfair to exclude individual groups from paying for these services. In
1995 Wisconsin Act 216, I vetoed a provision that would have prohibited the State Patrol from charging a fee to sponsors of this event. Many groups benefit from the enforcement and traffic safety services provided by the State Patrol at various events throughout the state. Unless the cost of this service is reimbursed, the primary traffic safety and enforcement duties of the State Patrol will suffer.
49. Sale of Motor Vehicle Records
Sections 5505, 5505g, 5505m and 5506
These sections require the Department of Transportation to report to the Joint Committee on Finance regarding the terms of any contract for the sale of accident and citation records and to also report if the contracted sale of these records reduced department revenues.
I am partially vetoing section 5505 and vetoing sections 5505g, 5505m and 5506 because these additional reporting requirements limit the department's authority to manage resources and increase workload at a time when department staffing levels and administrative funding are being reduced. A formal report to the Joint Committee on Finance was reasonable during the pilot stage of this program. However, ongoing reporting is unnecessary and is not a cost-effective use of scarce administrative resources.
__________________
C. HUman resources
BOARD ON AGING AND
LONG TERM CARE
1. Ombudsman Program
A343
Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.432 (1) (a)] appropriates $22,800 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $91,500 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 to fund 1.0 GPR FTE ombudsman position in fiscal year 1997-98 and 2.0 GPR FTE ombudsman positions in fiscal year 1998-99 for activities related to residential care apartment complexes. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the Legislature passed a motion and an amendment during its budget deliberations to authorize these funds for the ombudsman program. Section 96m authorizes the positions at the Board on Aging and Long Term Care to carry out their activities in residential care apartment complexes and section 2046m requires the facilities to post in a conspicuous location a notice, provided by the board, of the name, address and phone number of the long term care ombudsman program.
I object to the expansion of the ombudsman program to residential care apartment complexes since these facilities are designed as home-like environments for the elderly and disabled. Thus, I am vetoing sections 96m and 2046m. By lining out the Board on Aging and Long Term Care's s.
20.432 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $22,800 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $91,500 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds the expansion of this program to residential care apartment complexes. I am also requesting the Department of Administration Secretary not to allot these funds. I am also requesting the Secretary not to authorize the 1.0 FTE position in fiscal year 1997-98 and the 2.0 FTE positions in fiscal year 1998-99.
HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
2. Medical Assistance Program Benefits
Sections 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (5) (b), Medical Assistance Program Benefits], 1921 and 9123 (15s)
Decreased Federal Matching Rate. Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (5) (b), Medical Assistance Program Benefits] appropriates GPR funds in fiscal year 1998-99 for a change in the federal matching rate for Medical Assistance (MA). Now that the actual federal matching rate for fiscal year 1998-99 is known to be higher, the fiscal year 1998-99 budget can be reduced by $5,704,600 GPR for MA benefits.
I am writing down the MA GPR appropriation because the federal matching rate will not decline as projected.
Supplemental Payments for Essential Access City Hospitals. Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (5) (b), Medical Assistance Program Benefits] contains an appropriation of $123,400 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $124,100 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 to increase total annual payments to essential access city hospitals (EACH).
This EACH program now receives $4,400,000 (all funds) annually. I am writing down the MA appropriation to delete this increase because I object to the changed definition of an EACH that underlies this funding of the program. The original definition of an EACH is based on MA inpatient days as a percentage of total inpatient days. The new definition would rely on MA discharges as a percentage of total discharges and is a less accurate measure of total MA use. I am also requesting the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) Secretary to maintain the current definition of an essential access city hospital.
Hold Racine County Harmless for Labor Cost Reclassification. Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (5) (b), Medical Assistance Program Benefits] contains an appropriation of $644,900 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $671,700 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 for the increased cost of maintaining Racine County as a high-cost labor region. Section 9123(15s) directs DHFS to consider Racine County to be a high-cost labor region for purposes of determining the MA reimbursement of nursing home costs.
I am writing down the MA appropriation to eliminate this increase because the increase would hold the nursing facilities in one particular county harmless from the effects of the labor-region changes.
I am vetoing section 9123(15s) because it directs DHFS to provide special treatment to the nursing facilities in Racine County. I am requesting the DHFS Secretary to review the recent revision of the labor regions to determine if a more broadly based technical adjustment is warranted.
Reestimate Cost of the Nursing Home Rate Increase. Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (5) (b), Medical Assistance Program Benefits] contains a reduction in s.
20.435 (5) (b) of $2,031,900 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $2,169,800 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 to reflect a reestimate of the cost of providing a rate increase to nursing homes. Section 1921 authorizes no more than a 5.4% increase over that paid for services in fiscal year 1996-97 in MA funds for nursing home care.
I am writing down the MA appropriation to reflect reductions of $1,922,300 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $1,991,200 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99. I am also partially vetoing section 1921 to reduce the 5.4% increase to a 5% increase. The most recent information indicates that a rate increase of 5% will allow an adjustment of facility base rates and will meet appropriate industry cost increases.
By lining out the DHFS s.
20.435 (5) (b) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes a total of $2,690,600 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $8,491,600 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this program. I am also requesting the Department of Administration Secretary not to allot these funds.
3. Transfer of Medical Assistance Funds to COP
Section 1932m
This section provides for a potential transfer of funding from the Medical Assistance (MA) GPR appropriation to the community options program (COP), if the utilization of nursing home beds by MA recipients declines. Each year, the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) is required to submit a report by December 1st to the Joint Committee on Finance. Using the method specified in this section, the report must compare the use of beds in the most recently completed fiscal year to the use of beds in the prior fiscal year. Then, using the method specified in this section, the report must calculate the cost of that decline and propose a transfer of funds. The Joint Committee on Finance could approve and modify the proposal.
A344
This section would prescribe a method that could result in a transfer of funds that have never been budgeted, or it could result in transferring funds to COP that could not be sustained in the following fiscal year. I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the overly prescriptive directives about this report and the potential transfer. This veto allows DHFS to develop a more fiscally prudent method for calculating any fiscal effect of decreased bed use and to determine the final dollar amount of any transfer. I am requesting the DHFS Secretary to consult with the Secretary of Administration in the development of this report and transfer amount.
4. Medical Assistance Dental Pilot Project
Section 1942m
This section directs the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to develop a pilot project for the provision of Medical Assistance dental services under a managed care system. DHFS must seek any federal waivers necessary to implement this pilot. If these waivers are granted and if the pilot would be cost-effective, DHFS must implement the pilot project no later than January 1, 1998 and end it by June 30, 1999.
I am partially vetoing this section to delete the dates. The late passage of the 1997-99 budget will prevent DHFS from beginning such a project by January 1, 1998. This veto will allow DHFS to choose the starting and ending dates of this pilot project.
5. Badger Care
Section 1980p
This section creates a new health insurance program for low income families and requires the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to promulgate all administrative rules required for the program no later than 60 days after receipt of the federal waivers that allow implementation of Badger Care.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the requirement that DHFS promulgate these rules within 60 days because 60 days is not sufficient time to promulgate rules. I am requesting the DHFS Secretary to promulgate these rules as quickly as possible after receipt of the federal waivers and to use the emergency rules process if necessary.
6. Wisconcare
Sections 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (5)(gp) and
(5)(kp)], 554b, 594m, 3010m, 3010p, 3011, 3011m, 3012 and 9223
These sections restructure the Wisconcare program, which provides basic health care to individuals in 17 counties with high rates of unemployment. Under the bill, the program would be made into a statewide, competitive grant program with services to be provided by nonprofit, community-based corporations. Funding would remain at $1,500,000 PR per year except that in fiscal year 1997-98, an additional $150,000 in carryforward revenue would be used to serve persons previously served under the existing program. The sections also move the existing appropriation organizationally between programs one and five within the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS), create a new appropriation in program 5 and direct a lapse from the moved appropriation to the general fund of $725,900.
I am vetoing sections 3010m, 3010p, 3011, 3011m and 3012 because the restructuring of the program dilutes the effectiveness of the current program by spreading the funds across the state rather than focusing health care services provision on the 17 counties currently served. Further, as constructed, an unfunded mandate is created to serve those who are treated under the current program in the future. While minimal one-time funding is available in fiscal year 1997-98, no additional funds are provided after that. Finally, the creation of a grant program will lose the efficiencies gained under the current program. Currently, the DHFS fiscal agent, EDS, processes claims payments and disallows unauthorized costs, freeing up more funding for legitimate claims. I believe the existing program is properly targeted to areas of high unemployment, works well and should continue as under current law.
I am vetoing sections 169 [as it relates to 20.435(5)(gp) and (5)(kp)], 554b and 594m in order to retain the current program appropriation language.
I am vetoing section 9223 because it directs a lapse from an appropriation, which is eliminated in this veto. However, since the Legislature and I intend that accumulated funds be lapsed from this program to the general fund, I am requesting the Department of Administration Secretary to lapse $725,900 from appropriation 20.435(1)(gp), which will be the appropriation that contains the funds, on the effective date of the bill.
7. HIRSP Program Conversion
Section 3026f
This section defines the parameters for the payment of plan costs under the Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan (HIRSP) after the move of the program to DHFS on January 1, 1998. One provision requires DHFS to set premium rates, insurer assessments and provider payment rates for the period January 1, 1998 to June 30, 1998. I am vetoing this provision because it will not be possible for DHFS to complete the setting of these rates by January 1, 1998.
The other provisions in this section that redefine the HIRSP program are interpreted to mean that the new parameters need not be used until July 1, 1998, because the method of setting the rates will now not apply until the beginning of a plan year.
I am requesting DHFS to complete the rate setting procedure as quickly as possible. However, given the complexity added by the Legislature in not using the existing rates under Medical Assistance as I proposed and the late passage of the budget by the Legislature, the date of January 1, 1998 is unachievable.
8. County Support for County Residents
Section 2136
A345
This section allows the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to bill a county for part of the cost of an individual's care at one of the state centers for the developmentally disabled if an independent review has shown that the person could be served appropriately in the community. This was created as an incentive for counties to support community placements in accordance with state and federal directives for deinstitutionalization. However, under the bill, a county can be charged $48 per day only if the guardian or the individual's parents do not object to a community placement. I am partially vetoing this section to remove the reference to the objection of the guardian or the parent in order to maintain the fiscal incentive to counties to accept community placements. While many parents or guardians are initially opposed to placing their child or their ward in the community, DHFS has been very successful in working closely with parents and guardians to develop community placements which are acceptable to the parent or guardian and appropriate to the level of care the individual needs. By removing the reference to the objection of the guardian or parent, DHFS can continue to charge counties for part of the cost of care for those who could appropriately be placed in the community but who remain in the institution.
9. Supervised Release Placements
Sections 5491d and 5491y
These sections prohibit the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) from releasing a sexual predator into a county which contains a facility in which a predator was previously placed. I am vetoing these sections because, as written, the language can be interpreted more broadly than was intended and would severely limit the department's ability to place these individuals under supervision in the community. Under current law, a predator is placed on supervised release in that person's county of residence unless that county declines in which case DHFS must find another county which will accept the person. Predators cannot be released to either one of the two counties which currently have facilities in which the predators are housed unless that county is the person's county of residence. A broader interpretation implies that the predator could not be released into any county which had a facility in which the person was ever placed including other Division of Care and Treatment facilities or correctional institutions. This would make the already difficult process of placing a predator in the community all that much harder.
Although I am vetoing this language because it is subject to misinterpretation, I appreciate the need to address the problem of community placement for sexual predators and encourage the Legislature to revisit this issue and to propose language which will not be subject to misinterpretation.
10. Runaway Services
Section 1500m
This section requires the distribution of $100,000 GPR in each fiscal year as grants to programs that provide services for runaways. I am partially vetoing this section to provide a total of $100,000 GPR during the biennium because organizations currently receive federal funding from the state for this program. I am requesting the Department of Administration Secretary to place $50,000 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $50,000 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 in unallotted reserve in appropriation s.
20.435 (7) (bc) to lapse to the general fund.
11. Milwaukee Child Welfare Services Site Selection
Section 9123 (1) (dz)
This section requires the Secretary of Administration, in consultation with the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS), to submit a proposal for the selection of the five neighborhood-based child welfare service delivery sites planned for Milwaukee County to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) for the Committee's 14 day passive review. I am vetoing this section because the sites were already selected and the leases were signed prior to the motion action by JCF.
12. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Initiatives
Sections 169[as it relates to s.
20.435 (6) (gb)], 595m, 595n and 9423 (2g)
These sections change the alcohol and drug abuse initiatives appropriation from continuing to annual and specify that the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) must allocate at least $112,500 PR from the appropriation for grants to local organizations that conduct community based programs to prevent alcohol and other drug abuse. Section 595m also transfers $250,000 PR from this appropriation to Community Aids.
I am partially vetoing sections 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (6) (gb)], 595m and 9423 (2g) and vetoing section 595n to retain the appropriation as continuing. I want the department to have the flexibility available with a continuing appropriation, especially in light of the department's tight operating budget. Any increased funding from this appropriation must be approved by the Department of Administration.
I am also partially vetoing section 595m and vetoing section 595n to remove the stipulation that DHFS must allocate at least $112,500 PR from the appropriation for grants to local organizations that conduct community based programs to prevent alcohol and other drug abuse. While I am sensitive to the concerns that exist regarding the level of grants funded for the Alliance for a Drug Free Wisconsin, I want the department to have some flexibility in using the funds, especially for local technical assistance which is of equal importance to the grantees. However, I am requesting the DHFS Secretary to annually award a minimum of $94,000 PR in mini grants to local Alliances.
13. Compulsive Gambling Awareness Campaign
A346
Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (7) (kg)] provides $100,000 PRS annually to the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) for compulsive gambling awareness campaigns. Section 1410g requires DHFS to provide grants to individuals or organizations in the private sector for the campaigns. Section 1410g also requires DHFS to annually develop a plan for awarding the grants and to submit the plan to the Joint Committee on Finance for the Committee's 14 day passive review. I am partially vetoing section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (7) (kg)] to provide $100,000 PRS in fiscal year 1998-99 for compulsive gambling awareness campaigns. Future funding will be part of my compact negotiations with the Native American tribes. I am also partially vetoing section 1410g to delete the requirement that DHFS annually develop a plan for awarding the grants and submit the plan to the Joint Committee on Finance for the Committee's 14 day passive review. No resources were given to DHFS for this project and the 14 day passive review places an additional burden on the department in administering the campaigns.
14. Benefit Specialist Program
Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (7) (dj)] appropriates $1,160,000 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $1,160,000 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 for the benefit specialist program. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the Joint Committee on Finance passed a motion during its budget deliberations to authorize increased funding this program. Of the funding appropriated, $150,000 GPR annually was intended for a full time attorney trained in Indian Law and half time specialists for ten Native American Tribes.
I object to the funding for the full time attorney since I believe the tribes have the resources to employ their own attorney if needed for this program. By lining out the DHFS s.
20.435 (7) (dj) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $35,600 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $35,600 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this program. I am also requesting the Department of Administration Secretary not to allot these funds.
15. Income Augmentation Funds
Section 1486m
