While I support the motorcycle, moped and motor bicycle safety program, this use of taxpayer dollars is unwarranted during this period of tight transportation revenues. Therefore, I am partially vetoing section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (4) (aq)] to eliminate $406,000 SEG in fiscal years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The effect of this veto is to provide $53,900,000 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $53,892,200 in fiscal year 2002-03 for departmental management and operations expenditures.
I am vetoing the provisions pertaining to the size and color of a motorcycle license plate and color of a motorcycle stop lamp because these policy issues should be addressed as separate legislation. In addition, current federal motor vehicle safety standards indicate that the blue dot in the middle of the red motorcycle brake light is not permissible for sale or use.
122.
Vehicle Extrication Training Grants
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (5) (ds)], 671h, 2337k, 3410k, 3411k, 3412k, 3413k, 3414k and 9452 (2f)
These sections create an appropriation to make an annual grant of $375,000 beginning in fiscal year 2002-03 to a nonprofit corporation that has experience in providing training to teach vehicle extrication techniques. In addition, these sections increase the fee for vehicle operator's license search requests by $2.20.
I am vetoing section 2337k that requires the Department of Transportation to make an annual grant for vehicle extrication since the grant would duplicate similar services already provided by the Wisconsin Technical College System. Therefore, I am partially vetoing section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (5) (ds)] and section 671h to eliminate the appropriation used for allocating these grants.
In addition, I am vetoing sections 3410k, 3411k, 3412k, 3413k, 3414k and 9452 (2f) to remove twenty cents of the fee increase, thereby reducing the fee increase to $2.00 per request. Since the intended use of the twenty cent fee increase was to fund the vehicle extrication grant program, it is no longer necessary and would only serve to place an additional cost upon persons eligible to receive this information.
123.
Designation of Overlength Truck Routes
Section 9152 (5c)
Section 9152 (5c) lifts restrictions on motor truck lengths for portions of STH 107 and other specific county trunk highways until the Department of Transportation has had an opportunity to review these routes to determine if the routes should be designated as overlength truck routes under administrative rule.
S327
I am vetoing section 9152 (5c) because it bypasses the administrative rule process that designates truck routes as overlength truck routes. Allowing overlength truck travel on these routes before requiring a full assessment by the department and a public hearing may lead to premature wear on the roadway and other driver safety problems.
124.
Oversize and Overweight Vehicle Permit Fees
Sections 3446k, 3447k, 3448k, 3449k, 3450k, 3451k, 3452k, 3453k, 3454k, 3455k and 9452 (3k)
These sections increase the surcharge on oversize and overweight vehicle permits from ten percent to fifteen percent effective with permits issued after December 31, 2001, and extend the expiration of this surcharge from July 1, 2003, to March 1, 2009.
I am vetoing these sections because the fee increase places an unnecessary financial burden on our state's commercial motor carrier industry. I am requesting the Department of Transportation to work in cooperation with the commercial motor carrier industry and other interested parties to develop a funding alternative that will fully support implementation of an automated oversize and overweight vehicle permitting system. This veto will allow the ten percent surcharge on oversize and overweight vehicles to expire on July 1, 2003.
125.
Farm Progress Days
Sections 2339, 2339m and 2340i
These sections exempt any sponsor of Farm Progress Days from a provision that allows the Department of Transportation to charge sponsors of public events, that charge an admissions fee, for security and traffic enforcement services provided by state patrol officers. The sections also require the department to promulgate rules specifying sponsorship eligibility and what events qualify as Farm Progress Days.
I am partially vetoing this provision because it establishes a precedent for other special public event sponsors to request an exemption from paying for services provided by state patrol officers. The effect of this partial veto is to allow the department to charge public event sponsors a fee for security and traffic enforcement services if an admission fee is charged for the event.
126.
Passive Alcohol Sensors
Section 2882m
This section prohibits the use of a passive alcohol sensor by a law enforcement official for the purposes of detecting the presence of alcohol in a person's breath unless the person consents to its use.
I am vetoing this section because the use of these sensors may assist law enforcement personnel in deterring persons from driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. However, I do have concerns pertaining to the accuracy of these instruments and to ensuring that privacy rights are considered. Therefore, I am requesting the Department of Transportation to work in cooperation with other agencies and local law enforcement agencies to conduct a study on the effectiveness and use of these devices. Furthermore, this policy should be developed with greater input from law enforcement agencies and the public and be addressed in separate legislation.
127.
Fireworks Possession, Sale and Enforcement
Sections 2599m, 2599mg, 2881ae, 2881af, 2881ag, 2881ah, 2881aj, 2881ak, 2881am, 2881an, 2881ap, 3427t and 3427tg
These sections authorize resident wholesalers to sell regulated fireworks to any nonresident person if the nonresident person gives the wholesaler a signed statement indicating that the fireworks are for use outside this state. The sections also authorize nonresident persons to transport fireworks to an out-of-state location and to stop in any Wisconsin municipality for up to twelve hours while en route to the out-of-state destination. The section specifies that a person who intends to lawfully sell regulated fireworks may possess the fireworks without first obtaining a fireworks permit. In addition, state traffic patrol officers are authorized to enforce the permit requirement for the possession and use of fireworks on highways and to issue uniform traffic citations for violations of the permit requirement. However, the authority to seize fireworks that are possessed and are used in violation of fireworks statutes or ordinances is removed unless the violation is subject to criminal penalties. The sections prohibit courts from forwarding a record of conviction for any violation of the permit requirement to the Department of Transportation and prohibit the department from assessing any demerit points against driving records for convictions for violations of the permit requirement.
I am vetoing these sections because this is a policy issue that should be addressed through separate legislation to allow for further public input and discussion.
128.
Public Safety Radio Program
Sections 2321m and 2321p
These sections require the Department of Natural Resources to make quarterly payments to the Department of Transportation if it provides radio services to the Department of Natural Resources and the provision would limit the Department of Transportation's expenditures for the program to fifty percent of the cost or $138,000, whichever is less.
I am vetoing these provisions because they circumvent a previous agreement made between these two agencies and may leave the public safety radio program underfunded since the Department of Transportation is the primary user of the program's radio services. This veto will require payments for the public radio system to be based on the level of each agency's usage.
WISCONSIN HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
129.
Development Reserve Fund Authorization
Section 3125c
S328
This section requires the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority to include in its annual report to the Legislature recommendations for maximum expenditure amounts for the loan programs guaranteed by the Wisconsin development reserve fund. The Joint Committee on Finance may adjust the submitted amounts. The authority may request adjustments to the amounts during the year under a 14-day passive review process.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary and reduces the administrative flexibility of the authority. Guarantee requirements under the programs can change rapidly. To efficiently administer the Wisconsin development reserve fund, the authority must be able to adjust guarantee amounts across programs quickly.
C.
HUMAN RESOURCES
BOARD ON AGING AND LONG-TERM CARE
Volunteer Ombudsman Position
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.432 (1) (kc)] and 688d provide funding for 1.0 FTE PR-S volunteer ombudsman coordinator position. Section 721w requires the Department of Health and Family Services to transfer $35,300 PR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $40,200 PR in fiscal year 2002-03 to s.
20.432 (1) (kc) to fund the position. I am vetoing these sections because the expansion is unnecessary at this time. In addition, the civil money penalty funding from s.
20.435 (6) (g) is needed by the department for current nursing home monitoring costs and to create a reserve for future monitoring costs. I have retained the provision in the budget bill that requires the department to seek approval from the federal government to use civil money penalty funding for the ombudsman position. If the department receives federal approval and if the revenues are sufficient to support monitoring costs and the ongoing costs for the coordinator, the board can request the position and expenditure authority under ss.
16.505 and
16.515. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to authorize the 1.0 FTE PR-S position.
HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
2.
Intergovernmental Transfer Program
These sections relate to the use of nursing home intergovernmental transfer (IGT) funds for payments to county nursing homes and to other nursing homes receiving reimbursement under Medical Assistance. These sections specify that if less than $115,200,000 in revenue from the IGT program is received in a given fiscal year, the Department of Health and Family Services may only make a supplemental payment to counties of $37,100,000. This provision also allows the department to make a payment up to $77,100,000 if more than $115,200,000 in IGT revenues are received in a given fiscal year. Finally, these sections create a new sum sufficient appropriation in which any unanticipated or otherwise unappropriated IGT revenues are to be deposited, to be used only for supplemental payments to county or other nursing homes.
The budget as passed by the Legislature assumes annual IGT revenues will be significantly less than $115,200,000. Counties would receive an increased supplemental payment only if revenues are more than $115,200,000, yet if even slightly less revenue is available, the counties would receive no increase in the supplement. At the same time, the Legislature appropriated IGT revenues to pay fully for the increased payment, which is inconsistent with maintaining this $115,200,000 threshold in state statutes.
With respect to the new appropriation for unanticipated IGT revenues, this provision will create significant pressure to expend these revenues in the 2001-03 biennium, exacerbating a cost-to-continue problem. The intent of the administration was to dedicate the vast majority of unanticipated IGT revenues to county and other nursing home payments for use in future years. With the Medical Assistance budget facing a $220 million structural deficit at the start of fiscal year 2003-04, any IGT revenues received above what have already been appropriated should not be expended unless an unforeseen problem arises.
Therefore, I am digit vetoing sections 1776m and 1778, eliminating the $115,200,000 threshold and thus removing this inconsistency from the budget. Also, I am partially vetoing sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (4) (wm)] and 717bd to remove language specifying this new appropriation for unanticipated IGT funds as a sum sufficient appropriation. By default, as outlined in s.
20.001 (3) (a), this appropriation will operate as an annual appropriation which can only be increased by an act of the Legislature or by an emergency action as specified under s.
13.10. Furthermore, I direct the department, working cooperatively with the county and other nursing homes, to pursue separate legislation clarifying that the vast majority of any unanticipated IGT funds will be dedicated to future county and other nursing home payments.
3.
Supplemental Hospital Payment
Section 395 appropriates a supplemental payment to hospitals participating in the Medical Assistance (MA) managed care initiative. Although there is no language in the budget bill authorizing this supplement, the Legislature passed a motion and an amendment during its deliberations to authorize the increases in this area.
S329
All hospitals serving MA or BadgerCare recipients received a rate increase in the 2001-03 biennial budget using intergovernmental transfer funds. I see no reason to retain an additional supplement for facilities participating in the MA managed care initiative. Therefore, I am vetoing this provision and decreasing the Department of Health and Family Services' appropriation under s.
20.435 (4) (w) by $71,000 SEG in fiscal year 2001-02 and by $74,500 SEG in fiscal year 2002-03. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
4.
Joint Committee on Finance Authority to Supplement BadgerCare
Sections 1836g and 1836r
These sections authorize the Joint Committee on Finance to supplement the BadgerCare benefits appropriation under s.
13.10 from any other appropriation after the administration has submitted a proposal to reduce or stop program enrollment in the event of a projected funding shortfall. Under current law, the Department of Health and Family Services is required to limit enrollment in the program if the program is projected to exceed its budget, and BadgerCare may be supplemented only through an act of the full Legislature, signed by the Governor into law.
In its first two years, the BadgerCare program experienced rapid caseload growth which left the program facing budget shortfalls. Fully funding BadgerCare required separate legislation in fiscal year 2000-01 as well as additional increases in the 2001-03 biennial budget. However, caseload growth in the program has stabilized, and the need for future supplements is less likely.
If, however, there is unanticipated growth in the BadgerCare program, it is appropriate to consider reducing or stopping program enrollment. If both the Legislature and administration agree that sufficient funds exist to supplement the program, then separate legislation can still remedy any shortfall. Therefore, I am vetoing these sections, to eliminate the Joint Committee on Finance's authority to supplement the BadgerCare program from any other state appropriation because it is unnecessary.
5.
BadgerCare Funding Study
Section 9123 (9wo)
This provision requires the Department of Health and Family Services to produce a report for the Joint Committee on Finance on the potential for long-term savings under the BadgerCare program, to be completed by January 1, 2002.
I support finding ways to reduce program costs in BadgerCare and other health care programs, but this provision does not provide the department sufficient time to complete a comprehensive review of the program. Therefore, I am partially vetoing this provision and am directing the department to complete its review of the BadgerCare program by January 1, 2003. Furthermore, I direct the department to submit a copy of the report to the secretary of the Department of Administration as a cost-containment proposal to be considered during the 2003-05 biennial budget process.
6.
Medical Assistance Estate Recovery Audit
Section 9132 (3w)
This section requests that the Joint Committee on Audit direct the Legislative Audit Bureau to study the estate recovery program administered by the Department of Health and Family Services. The Joint Committee on Audit currently has the authority to request such a study if it deems an evaluation is needed, making this budget provision unnecessary. Therefore, I am vetoing this provision.
7.
Provider Fraud and Abuse Administrative Rules
Section 9123 (15k)
This provision requires the Department of Health and Family Services to craft proposed administrative rules for new Medical Assistance fraud and abuse provisions within nine months of the budget bill's effective date. I feel nine months is not sufficient time for the department to develop proposed administrative rules. Therefore, I am vetoing section 9123 (15k) and am directing the department to submit its proposed rules to the Joint Legislative Council staff by January 1, 2003.
8.
Grants for Case Management Services for Children with Asthma
These sections authorize a $150,000 GPR annual grant to Milwaukee County to provide case management services to children with asthma. I am vetoing this provision because the Department of Health and Family Services is investing significant resources into Medical Assistance (MA) services for asthma treatment. Furthermore, asthma is a statewide medical issue and its treatment and control is not well served through geographic earmarks. Therefore, I am vetoing these sections and eliminating this special grant to Milwaukee County.
Medical Assistance as well as the BadgerCare program currently cover case management services for children with asthma, including comprehensive assessments of the child's needs, the development of an individualized case plan and on-going monitoring of the child. The department also encourages health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to report on the asthma care received by MA and BadgerCare recipients in their respective areas of service and will begin including performance measures tracking asthma care in the department's contracts with HMOs. These initiatives represent just a few of several state programs that address asthma issues.
9.
Standards for Health Maintenance Organizations
Sections 1787m, 1787mg, 9323 (15k) and 9423 (12p)
S330
These sections require all health maintenance organizations (HMOs) serving Medical Assistance (MA) and BadgerCare recipients within a specific zip code to have a sufficient number of primary care providers available within thirty miles of that zip code. This provision was intended to broaden the number of primary care providers to which MA or BadgerCare recipients have access. While I support ensuring recipients have sufficient access to care, this policy item will not have any measurable effect on access issues.
The Department of Health and Family Services currently requires these HMOs to have a sufficient number of primary care providers within twenty miles of the zip code in which they serve recipients. I feel that a narrower radius is more beneficial to participants in that it ensures more providers are available closer to an individual's home. Furthermore, by specifying a radius in state statute, the department's authority to administratively respond to unique geographical access issues would be limited. Therefore, I am vetoing these sections and retaining the department's current authority to address primary care access issues through its administrative authority.
10.
Medical Assistance Income Limit for Medically Needy Recipients
Sections 1797g, 1797j, 1798g, 1800m, 1804g, 1804m, 1805d, 1815g, 1815j, 9323 (10d) and 9423 (6d)
These provisions provide $500,800 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 in order to expand Medical Assistance (MA) eligibility by increasing the income limit for medically needy recipients by the annual increase in the consumer price index. This change would not be effective until January 1, 2003.
Under current law, individuals who are not categorically eligible for MA can "spend down" their incomes to the medically needy limit to qualify for assistance. Some families have difficulty obtaining and maintaining coverage under this provision because the spend down threshold is capped at 133 percent of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children income limit in 1996, which is $596 for a family of two. While I am sympathetic to families who have difficulty obtaining services under the medically needy criteria, the tight fiscal constraints faced by the state make additional expansions of the MA program problematic. Since these annual adjustments will be only partially implemented in fiscal year 2002-03, they will add approximately $500,000 GPR to the structural deficit facing the state at the start of the 2003-05 biennium. Therefore, I am vetoing these provisions to maintain the current income threshold for those seeking MA under the medically needy eligibility category. Furthermore, I am requesting that the Department of Administration secretary place $500,800 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 in unallotted reserve in appropriation s.
20.435 (4) (b) to lapse to the general fund.
11.
Transfer of Medical Assistance Funds to Community Options Program
Sections 1778d, 1778h, 1778p and 1778r
These sections require the Department of Health and Family Services to submit annually a report to the Joint Committee on Finance on the utilization of nursing home beds funded by Medical Assistance (MA) program benefits. These provisions further require the department to submit an annual proposal to the Joint Committee on Finance, under 14-day passive review, to transfer MA funds to the Community Options Program (COP) if the report shows decreasing MA nursing home bed utilization. The specific amount the department must transfer to COP is equal to the decrease in nursing home bed utilization over the prior two fiscal years multiplied by the average cost of a nursing home bed in the most recently completed fiscal year. This provision does not require the Joint Committee on Finance to consider the overall fiscal condition of the MA program before approving this transfer.
Under current law, the department may transfer surplus MA funds budgeted for nursing homes to COP, but such transfers may occur only if there is an overall surplus in the MA benefits appropriation. While I support community-based strategies for providing long-term care services, I object to this requirement to transfer MA funds to COP even if the MA budget is in deficit. Such a transfer would simply worsen a deficit which can only be filled by appropriating additional general purpose revenue. Transfers made in one fiscal year should not be dictated by occurrences in prior years, because the factors contributing to the situation in the past may not recur or persist in the present.
Therefore, I am vetoing these provisions, reinstating the Department of Health and Family Services' current authority to transfer MA nursing home funds to COP if a surplus in the entire MA program exists.
12.
Health Insurance Supplement for Community Disability Service Providers
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (4) (bu)], 707r, 707s, 9123 (13q) and 9423
(15r)
These sections provide a $250,000 GPR supplement in fiscal year 2001-02 to providers under the home- and community-based waiver programs to meet the costs of providing employee health insurance. While I acknowledge that health insurance costs can be significant for these facilities, such costs are not unique to these providers. Any health care provider, company or small business faces similar cost pressures, and I see no justification for providing a special supplement only to community-based waiver program providers. Therefore, I am vetoing these sections and eliminating the supplement.
13.
Medical Assistance Speech Therapy Services
