Finally, section 9101 (20c) requires DOA to study the possibility of selling and transferring Wisconsin's rights to the tobacco settlement funds in order to create a permanent endowment fund. The study is to be completed by January 1, 2000. I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the study due date in order to provide more time for the department to complete a thorough and comprehensive review.
20. Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Electronic Benefits Transfer
Sections 34b, 2435q and 9123 (8d)
These sections establish a WIC Council attached to the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) which will review the program and make recommendations on needed changes in policy and procedures to the DHFS secretary and the Legislature. They also require DHFS to study the feasibility of an electronic benefits transfer program for WIC and submit the study to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) by January 1, 2002. The study would specify the information systems requirements, the compatibility of such a system with existing electronic benefits transfer programs and the costs of such a system.
I am vetoing the provisions establishing a council because it is duplicative. DHFS already has an advisory council which addresses policies and procedures in the WIC program. I am also partially vetoing the specific topics to be addressed in the feasibility study. I am interested in the possibility of using the electronic transfer of benefits in the future and I would like to learn what other states are developing now. However, I believe it is premature to conduct the study as proposed given the difficulty several states are experiencing in trying to develop this type of system. I am also vetoing the provision requiring the submission of the study to JCF and the due date, to provide DHFS some additional flexibility.
_Toc40102816121. Community Health Centers and the Minority Health Program
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (5) (fh)] and 2400m
Section 2400m provides $3,500,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $4,000,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 for federally qualified health centers. Section 2400m also provides $100,000 GPR in each fiscal year for the Mary Mahoney Health Services Center in Milwaukee. Finally, section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (5) (fh)] provides $300,000 GPR annually to support a minority health program which will provide grants to improve minority health and a minority health media campaign.
While the federally qualified health centers provide a valuable service, I believe the amounts appropriated are excessive. Therefore, I am vetoing section 2400m [as it relates to the federally qualified health centers' allocation language] in order to reduce funding for these centers to $2,500,000 in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2000-2001. I am also partially vetoing funding in fiscal year 2000-2001 in section 2400m [as it relates to the Mary Mahoney Center] and the minority health program to avoid building these costs into the next biennium's base spending. Instead, I am asking these programs to apply for additional funding through a grant from the Tobacco Control Board. I am requesting that the Department of Administration secretary place $1,000,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $1,100,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 into unallotted reserve in appropriation s. 20.435 (5) (fh) to lapse to the general fund. I am also writing in a smaller amount in s. 20.435 (5) (fh) to reflect the GPR reduction in funding for the minority health program which should seek support in the second year from tobacco settlement funds. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot the $300,000 for the minority health program.
22. Consolidated Contracts
Sections 999m and 9323 (11m)
These sections require the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to submit a plan to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) for approval under the 14-day passive approval process to consolidate a variety of public health contracts for such activities as lead poisoning prevention and family planning. This language was developed in response to concerns from many organizations and public health departments that the inclusion of the family planning funds in the consolidated contract would politicize the provision of these services, as it already had in two counties, if the contract had to be approved by the county board of supervisors. To ensure that these services continue to be provided statewide and to not impede the progress of the rest of the consolidated contract proposal, I have directed DHFS to remove family planning services from the consolidated contract. I am vetoing the language requiring JCF review since the primary problem it was designed to address has been resolved.
23. Newborn Hearing Screening Program
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (5) (jk)], 368r, 368s, 434r, 434s, 434t, 1649r, 1649s, 2439r, 2439s and 9423 (11g)
These provisions establish a newborn hearing screening program under which grants would be made to hospitals to purchase equipment for hearing tests and to provide training. The program would be funded by a $2 increase in the cost of a birth certificate for the period October 1, 1999, (or on the first day of the month after publication, whichever is later) through December 31, 2001. The Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) is required to collect data on the number of babies born in hospitals that test hearing. If, by August 5, 2003, DHFS determines that less than 88% of babies born in the state are delivered at hospitals which do not administer hearing tests, then DHFS must require all hospitals in the state to provide the tests.
I believe this program has merit, but I believe that funding the program with increased fees from birth certificates is inappropriate. As a result, I am vetoing the appropriation under s. 20.435 (5) (jk) and other sections related to the funding for this program. I am, however, retaining the programmatic language and asking the groups that support this program to work together to propose a more appropriate source of funding for the program.
24. Birth and Developmental Outcome Program
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (1) (a)]
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (1) (a)] provides $100,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $200,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 to purchase the services of a medical records abstractor to collect and study data on children with birth defects. I am reducing funding for this purpose by $100,000 in the second year because there was no justification to document the need for increasing the level of funding for this program in the second year. By lining out s. 20.435 (1) (a) and writing in a smaller amount, I am vetoing the part of the bill that funds this provision. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
25. Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan (HIRSP)
Sections 2277t and 2278g
Section 2277t allows the HIRSP Board or the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to adjust the income eligibility brackets for the premium and deductible subsidies by the consumer price index. Prior to making these adjustments, the HIRSP Board and DHFS must obtain approval of the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF). I am partially vetoing the provision that requires JCF approval because the additional oversight provided by the committee is unnecessary.
Section 2278g requires DHFS to obtain approval from the HIRSP Board before developing rules on cost containment strategies such as prior authorization requirements. I am vetoing this provision to ensure that departmental staff have flexibility in establishing cost containment strategies. However, I am directing the DHFS secretary to consult with the HIRSP Board with respect to these policies prior to issuing any new rules.
26. Caregiver Background Checks Recidivism Study
Section 9111 (4xx)
This section directs the Department of Corrections (DOC), in conjunction with the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW), to prepare a report on the correlation between prior convictions and the propensity to commit future acts of abuse, neglect or misappropriation. I am partially vetoing this section to delete DOC participation in the study. Many crimes of abuse, neglect and misappropriation are misdemeanors, and records of these crimes are kept at the county level. Court records, not DOC records, are a more appropriate and comprehensive source of data for this study. I am requesting the UW to submit the report to the Legislature in the manner provided under s. 13.172 (3) of the statutes no later than June 30, 2001.
27. Income Augmentation Contract
Sections 456r, 1091k and 9323 (13f)
These sections require the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to perform activities to augment income received under 42 USC 670 to 679a, 42 USC 1395 to 1395ddd and 42 USC 1396 to 1396v (foster care, Medicaid and Medicare). Under these sections, DHFS is required to perform these activities itself and may not contract with any person to perform these activities. I am vetoing these sections because I want DHFS to have the flexibility to augment federal income in a manner that maximizes the amount of income the state receives from the federal government. The vendor currently under contract with DHFS has already documented $68.1 million in retroactive claims that the state has since collected.
28. Data Collection Proposals
Section 9123 (8mx)
This section requires that two proposals be developed regarding health care data collection. The first allows the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to develop and submit a request by June 30, 2001, for expenditure and position authority to the Department of Administration (DOA) that would allow DHFS to collect health care data from physicians and would include recommendations regarding how that activity might be funded. DOA may submit the proposal, along with any legislation necessary to implement the proposal, to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) for approval under the 14-day passive review process. The second proposal is a joint effort of DHFS, the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance and the Department of Employe Trust Funds to develop a memorandum of understanding among the agencies regarding the consolidation of health care data collection activities. This proposal would be sent to DOA which would forward the proposal with any modifications and any needed language to JCF for approval under the 14-day passive approval process.
I am vetoing the provision under which DHFS may submit a proposal to collect health care data from physicians because it is no longer necessary. This provision was incorporated in the JCF version of the bill. However, in a later step in the legislative process, the staff and funding needed to collect the data were approved.
I am also vetoing the provision requiring the three agencies to develop a proposal for a consolidated data collection system because it, too, is unnecessary. All three agencies are currently members of the Interagency Coordinating Council whose charge is specifically to coordinate health care data collection activities among all state agencies.
29. Five-Year Age Increments
Section 2280c
This provision, which is part of a larger initiative on the confidentiality of health care records, describes the data elements which can be included in public use data files. It specifically indicates that a person's age must be included in 5-year increments up to age 80 and a category of 80 and over. Groups conducting research on geriatric health indicate there are significant health differences in people over 80 and would prefer to have data on that age group reported in 5-year increments as well. Therefore, I have partially vetoed this section to ensure that all data are reported in 5-year increments regardless of age.
30. Social Security Numbers on State Documents
Sections 936t, 944w, 2359tb, 9315 (1p), 9315 (2p) and 9317 (3p)
These sections prohibit the Departments of Employe Trust Funds and Employment Relations from using social security numbers as an identifier on state documents, including agency time sheets, deferred compensation statements and retirement system statements.
While I most definitely support efforts to protect people's identities, I do not believe that the fiscal impact of these provisions was clearly defined. Both agencies reported that they would need significant funding to completely overhaul their information systems which use the social security number as the primary link between payroll, time reporting and benefits accounting. For these reasons, I am vetoing the provisions related to the use of social security numbers on state documents.
I am asking these agencies to comply with the spirit of the language to the extent that they can and I am asking members of the Governor's Task Force on Privacy to address this issue and provide me with recommendations which can be included in the January legislative session.
INSURANCE
31. Point-of-Service Option
Sections 3036h, 9326 (4g) and 9426 (4g)
This provision, which is part of a larger initiative on point-of-service option insurance plans, exempts employers from having to offer such a plan if, after having offered this option and providing an opportunity to enroll, fewer than 25 employes express an interest in enrolling in this plan. I am partially vetoing these sections because I believe it is inequitable to employes who did express an interest in the plan, but were denied the opportunity to enroll in the point-of-service plan simply because fewer than 25 of their co-workers wanted to purchase this plan.
32. Obstetric Services Referrals
Section 3036r
This section prohibits managed care plans that offer obstetric and gynecologic services from requiring female enrollees to get a referral for these services. It further requires the plans to provide notification of this referral prohibition in the person's policy and in the literature provided during each enrollment period.
I am partially vetoing the provision requiring notice of the referral prohibition during the open enrollment period because it will unnecessarily increase plan costs. Managed care plans are already required to identify referral policies when they issue coverage to a person.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
33. W-2 Agency Profits – County Community Reinvestment
Sections 1330r and 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (d)]
These sections require the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to distribute an amount equal to 4% of W-2 agencies’ contract amounts directly to county governments for purposes of community reinvestment. They also require DWD to establish by rule criteria for the use of community reinvestment funds.
I object to the treatment of community reinvestment funds in this section. My budget proposal made community reinvestment funds available to W-2 agencies as a bonus for agency performance. These provisions create a guaranteed distribution of community reinvestment funds to counties, not W-2 agencies, regardless of performance. While many county governments administer the W-2 program, under this provision those nonprofit and private organizations administering W-2 would not have access to community reinvestment dollars. Moreover, the proposal agreed to by the Conference Committee allocated an amount equal to 3% of contract amounts for community reinvestment, and allocations under s. 49.175 (1) (d) were calculated using the 3% community reinvestment proposal. Section 1330r, however, states that amounts for community reinvestment would equal 4% of the contract total, not 3%.
Finally, use of reinvestment funds has not been detailed in the statutes because I wanted each agency to have the flexibility to use the funds to benefit its own particular community. DWD already issues guidance for use of community reinvestment bonuses, and I feel requiring DWD to create administrative rules is unnecessary.
Therefore, I am partially vetoing these sections so that DWD may distribute community reinvestment funds to W-2 agencies instead of directly to counties and to remove the requirement that DWD establish rules for the use of community reinvestment funds. I am, however, leaving the requirement that DWD establish criteria for the use of reinvestment funds. These criteria should be consistent with performance standards established in the W-2 Request for Proposal for the award of community reinvestment funds.
34. W-2 Agency Performance Standards
Section 1224d
This provision would codify in statute several performance standards that W-2 agencies would have to meet before earning performance bonuses from the Department of Workforce Development (DWD). The provision would also require the creation of a system to track former W-2 participants and former applicants to ensure agencies are meeting their contractual obligations and to assess whether those agencies qualify for performance bonuses.
I support the performance criteria in this section. However, I feel basing agency performance on the status of former applicants, persons who never participated in the program, seems unnecessary and would significantly increase the number of persons DWD must track. Furthermore, DWD already has a system in place, the Client Assistance for Reemployment and Economic Support (CARES) system, which tracks former W-2 participants for 180 days after leaving the W-2 program.
Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section to remove the requirement that DWD track former applicants and that DWD create a tracking system. I recognize tracking former W-2 participants provides information that helps Wisconsin evaluate the ability of W-2 agencies to increase self-sufficiency. Therefore, I am directing DWD to assess the effects of increasing the number of days they track former participants from 180 days to 365 days. This study should identify the costs as well as the capacity of the CARES system to handle such an increase.
35. Statewide Advisory Group
Sections 1224c, 1224p and 9357 (7g)
These sections would require the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to create a statewide advisory group that would serve as a source of information about W-2 programs and policies and as a forum for public comment on W-2. The department would have to organize regional forums and special work groups to address concerns raised by the advisory group, and any person would be allowed to participate in these meetings.
I object to these provisions because there is already an extensive process for public comment on the W-2 program. DWD received over 700 comments on the last W-2 Request for Proposal alone. Furthermore, each W-2 agency currently has a community steering committee in place which can help the agency evaluate W-2 policies and organize forums with or without DWD participation. The proposed statewide advisory group would only seem to add another layer to W-2 administration, one for which no resources have been provided. Therefore, I am vetoing the requirement in section 1224p that DWD create a statewide advisory group and organize regional forums and work groups. I am also vetoing section 9357 (7g) and partially vetoing section 1224c which require DWD to consult with this statewide advisory group when establishing performance standards.
36. Full and Appropriate Engagement in W-2 Contracts
Section 9157 (2c) (b)
This section directs the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to amend its Request for Proposal (RFP) for the next W-2 contract. One provision defines engagement for the Food Stamp Employment and Training (FSET) program as activities equal to the household’s monthly food stamp benefit divided by the minimum wage. The current work requirement, as specified by the W-2 RFP, is 27 hours of work-related activities per week. This provision was included based on the argument that the RFP’s FSET engagement criterion was not in compliance with federal regulations. However, the Department of Administration and DWD have confirmed that the requirement in the RFP is in fact acceptable under federal law.
Another provision eliminates the criterion that full and appropriate engagement for W-2 subsidized employment is engagement for at least 30 hours per week. The W-2 program is guided by the principle that participants should be attached to the workforce in order to qualify for public assistance. This provision essentially weakens the W-2 work requirement and thus a basic program goal.
Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section. This action will reinstate the FSET and W-2 engagement requirements as defined currently in the W-2 RFP.
37. Nonentitlement Modifications
Sections 1216m and 1227m
Section 1227m requires W-2 agencies to place a person who meets the eligibility requirements into a subsidized employment position within 30 days of application, if the person has made a reasonable job search that was unsuccessful. Agencies would also have to place an individual incapable of job search into subsidized employment immediately upon determining that person meets eligibility requirements. Finally, section 1216m exempts these two categories of individuals from W-2 nonentitlement statutes under s. 49.141 (4).
I object to these provisions because W-2 agencies already should be providing services to assist the individuals targeted by this provision. W-2 policy specifies that any individual classified as “job ready” but unable to find work must be reassessed every 7 days. Those reassessments provide W-2 financial employment workers the opportunity to determine what support services the participant needs in order to find work and to reconsider whether the person is in fact ready for unsubsidized employment. Furthermore, under current policy those not considered “job ready” must not be required to search for employment as a condition of their eligibility for W-2. W-2 agencies may place such applicants into trial jobs, community service jobs or W-2 transition placements.
One key philosophy of W-2 is that no individual is entitled to public assistance. Section 1216m reinstates entitlement by exempting individuals from the nonentitlement section of the statutes, thereby eroding this important aspect of the program. Therefore, I am vetoing these sections to remove the proposed nonentitlement exemption and eliminate the placement requirement for certain new W-2 applicants.
38. W-2 Pay Period
Section 1237t
This section specifies that the participation period for a W-2 employment position must be from the 26th day of one month to the 25th day of the next month. As a result, the participant would receive a full benefit check on the 1st day of the subsequent month. This section would also require W-2 agencies to provide the first grant payment to new participants 14 days after beginning participation. The pay period runs currently from the 16th day of one month to the 15th day of the next, with payment on the 1st day of each month. The Department of Workforce Development (DWD) issues new participants partial payments on the 1st day of the month after they begin participating in W-2 even if they have not participated for any hours in the previous pay period.
DWD uses the time between the end of the pay period (the 16th) and the first of the month to adjust assistance checks for sanctions. The proposed provision would reduce the amount of time DWD has to make such adjustments by two-thirds. In addition, issuing checks to new participants 14 days after beginning participation would create a system where DWD would be issuing assistance checks every day of the month. DWD also would have no time to adjust these partial payments if the participant incurred any sanctions. Therefore, I am vetoing this section, thus maintaining the current pay period system.
I recognize that people first applying for W-2 assistance may be experiencing economic crises and need emergency help. Currently, W-2 agencies may offer emergency assistance grants and emergency food stamps to new participants facing such hardship. However, if improvements to the pay period are possible, DWD should explore them. I therefore direct DWD to study whether or not improvements to the existing pay period are necessary and to assess the effectiveness of current emergency assistance in meeting the needs of those facing hardship.
39. Technical College Substitution for W-2 Work
Sections 1233m, 1237f and 1237h
These sections permit W-2 participants to engage in a self-initiated technical college education program as part of a community service job (CSJ) placement or transitional placement (W-2T). Participants could participate in such programs for the duration of the technical college program or two years, whichever is shorter. A W-2 agency could not require such participants to work more than 25 hours per week.
Under current law, W-2 agencies can assign up to 10 hours per week of education and training activities, including technical college education, to W-2 participants as part of their CSJ component. These participants can be required to work up to 30 hours per week. However, participants cannot substitute this education for their work requirement, nor are they allowed to initiate the education program. Rather, the financial employment planner (FEP) determines what type of education is appropriate, how much is needed and how much the participant should work. Similarly, a person in a W-2T placement can be assigned up to 12 hours per week of education and training and up to 28 hours per week of work.
By allowing participants to substitute their technical college education for their work requirement, the emphasis of the W-2 program could shift away from work and back towards education programs. Moreover, maintaining the FEP role in determining the education program for participants is important, therefore I am partially vetoing sections 1233m, 1237f and 1237h to remove the ability of participants to initiate the education program and to ensure that any participant wishing to engage in technical college under this section must work 25 hours per week.
40. Child Care Assistance Employment Requirements
Sections 1250b and 1252
These sections remove any work requirement as a condition of eligibility for W-2 child care assistance while participating in an education program. Under current law, participants are required to have 9 months of previous workforce attachment or be engaged in a W-2 subsidized employment position before becoming eligible to receive child care assistance while going to school. My budget proposal reduced the work requirement to 3 months. Because of anticipated increases in eligibility for child care assistance, an additional $130,000 PR-F was allocated for fiscal year 1999-2000 and an additional $150,000 PR-F was allocated for fiscal year 2000-2001.
