Cuts to Family Care funds in state budget may mean fewer assisted living options
Unless the Wisconsin State Legislature acts to maintain funding levels of Wisconsin's Medicaid Family Care program, it's very possible the growing number of seniors in need of long-term care services like assisted living will find fewer options in their communities. Family Care is a long-term care program for older adults and adults with disabilities. Part of the program's funding is designated for assisted living facilities to help enhance caregiver wages. Without maintaining current funding levels, assisted living facilities will not be able to provide competitive wages for caregivers. In turn, that will lead to understaffed facilities and operators faced with a choice of either closing their doors or leaving the Family Care program altogether. Thankfully, there have been efforts by members of the legislature and Gov. Tony Evers to address these issues in the past, but additional attention is needed.
In 2017, lawmakers created the Direct Care Workforce Funding Initiative, which provides a funding mechanism directly to caregivers to help address workforce challenges in the state. Funding through this initiative is distributed to assisted living facilities by third-party Managed Care Organizations that use industry metrics to determine funding allocations to individual facilities and ultimately to caregivers. This funding has been a lifeline to help recruit and retain caregivers during a workforce crisis.
Opinion: Changes to Social Security would cost average Wisconsin resident $7,000 a year
In addition, last October the Department of Health Services established a minimum fee schedule that created 'minimum rates' for assisted living facilities. This program is crucial as it also increased the average wage assumptions in the Family Care program from $13.02 per hour to $15.75 per hour. While this does not recognize the true labor market trends of caregiver starting wages, $17.75 per hour, it is a step in the right direction.
We're fortunate that our state leaders have been responsive in the past to investing in programs supportive of addressing the workforce challenges affecting Wisconsin's long-term health care system. We need them to be responsive again with the next biennial budget.
That's why we're requesting that current funding levels are maintained in the upcoming budget. Those funding levels include $202.7 million in state general purpose revenue over the next biennium for the 'minimum fee schedule.' It is also imperative to maintain current funding of the Direct Care Workforce Funding Initiative — $115 million in state general purpose revenue over the next biennium.
Opinion: Federal government spends millions on libraries. Executive order ends that.
A decrease in funding means a decrease in wages for caregivers along with rate decreases for facilities, something our industry and the state as a whole cannot afford. In order to effectively staff the anticipated increase in caregiving needs and for assisted living facilities to obtain adequate reimbursement that reflects economic realities and the true cost of care, the Family Care program needs to provide adequate reimbursement.
➤Want to contact your state legislator? Here's where you can find your representatives.
Michael Pochowski is president and CEO of the Wisconsin Assisted Living Association.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin budget must maintain funds for assisted living | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
35 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Scott Galloway sends strong message to Elon Musk about Bill Gates
Podcaster and New York University professor Scott Galloway is well-known for his provocative opinions and smart takes on business, finance and government. That fact includes Galloway's unconventional view on how Social Security ought to be run. It also involves some sharply critical words he recently spoke about Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Galloway, who earns $16 million annually, contends that wealthy individuals, including himself, should not receive Social Security benefits. He advocates for means-testing to determine eligibility, ensuring that the program primarily supports those who depend on it for financial security in retirement. He highlights an imbalance in the system, pointing out that an employee at the company he owns, ProfG Media, earning $160,000 annually contributes $9,000 to Social Security, which amounts to 6% of their income. However, because Social Security taxes are capped at $160,000, someone earning millions - such as himself - still pays only $9,000, despite making exponentially more. Related: Scott Galloway warns Americans on 401(k), US economy threat Galloway sees Social Security as a safety net meant to prevent seniors from falling into poverty, rather than a mechanism for transferring wealth from younger generations to retirees who, collectively, are the most financially well-off generation in history. He argues that substantial reforms are necessary to reduce costs significantly. He believes that political leaders have avoided addressing the issue due to the risks involved, noting that older voters have managed to secure increasing financial benefits for themselves. Galloway asserts that this trend must end and that, by his math, approximately one-third of seniors should not be receiving Social Security. Appearing on a YouTube broadcast of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Galloway explained his view that a number of Musk's actions, such as spearheading the shutting down of USAID, were not to be respected. "Somehow we've decided in America that innovation and money replaces - or obviates, or excuses - depravity." Galloway said. "Or cutting off aid to HIV positive mothers, deciding what veterans should get benefits, cutting off SNAP payments, which have shown to have a positive net return when people run out of money for food at the end of the month." "I mean, I think one of the wonderful things about being an American and quite frankly, for me what it means to be a man and what I try to teach my boys, is the whole point of prosperity is such that you can protect people," he added. More on retirement: Dave Ramsey sounds alarm for Americans on Social SecurityScott Galloway warns Americans on 401(k), US economy threatShark Tank's Kevin O'Leary has message on Social Security, 401(k)s Galloway criticized Musk's behavior, arguing that wealth and success should not excuse problematic actions. According to Galloway, when someone publicly makes offensive gestures such as apparent Nazi salutes, is largely absent from their children's lives, or reportedly struggles with substance abuse, it raises serious concerns. He questions whether such a person should be considered an aspirational figure for young men. Galloway urges people to reflect on how money and status can distort public perception, noting that Musk's achievements - whether in aerospace or autonomous vehicles - are remarkable. However, he challenges the idea that these accomplishments justify moral failings, asking whether society should overlook unethical behavior simply because someone is a visionary or the richest person in the world. Related: Dave Ramsey warns Americans on Social Security Galloway discusses Musk's behavior and mentions billionaire Bill Gates as an example of an immensely wealthy person who is putting his money toward philanthropy and making the world a better place. "Does that mean unlike Bill Gates, he's not using his billions to help people?" Galloway asked. "He's not planting trees the shade of which he won't sit under. I think this is an individual who has literally come off the tracks ... and is using his immense power to get people elected." "Too many of us excuse what is abhorrent behavior," Galloway added. "I think his legacy is not going to be an EV or putting rockets into space. I think it's going to be unnecessary death, disease, and disability of the world's most vulnerable. That is not what it means to be an innovator. It's not what it means to be an American. It's not what it means to be a man." Related: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary sends strong message on Social Security The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Panetta on SCOTUS Giving DOGE Access to Social Security Data
Leon Panetta, Former US Secretary of Defense, voices his concerns about the US Supreme Court giving DOGE access to social security data after Elon Musk and President Trump's feud. He also criticizes President Trump's latest position on Russia and Ukraine. Leon Panetta speaks with Kailey Leinz and Joe Mathieu on the late edition of Bloomberg's 'Balance of Power.' (Source: Bloomberg)
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court allows DOGE to access Social Security data
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security Administration data. The conservative-majority court, with its three liberal justices objecting, granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration asking the justices to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. The unsigned order said that members of the DOGE team assigned to the Social Security Administration should have "access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work." The lawsuit challenging DOGE's actions was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers — as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data." The White House praised the ruling. "The Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law," White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in a statement. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion questioning the need for the court to intervene on an emergency basis. "In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes," she added. DOGE, set up by billionaire Elon Musk before his falling out with President Donald Trump, says it wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. The data it seeks includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information. "These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court papers. The lawsuit alleged that allowing broader access to the personal information would violate a federal law called the Privacy Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. "The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure — and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," the challengers' lawyers wrote in court papers. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had ruled that DOGE had no need to access the specific data at issue. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision, leading to the Trump administration to file its emergency request at the Supreme Court. In a separate order issued at the same time in another case involving DOGE, the Supreme Court granted another request filed by the Trump administration. That decision allows the Trump administration to, for now, shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. The move formalizes a decision issued by Chief Justice John Roberts on May 23 that temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. The court also told lower courts to limit the scope of what material could be disclosed. It means the government will not have to respond to requests for documents and allow for the deposition of the DOGE administrator, Amy Gleason, as a lower court had ruled, while litigation continues. The three liberal justices noted their disagreement with that decision, too. A spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which filed the lawsuit, said the group was "obviously disappointed" with the decision but "pleased that the court allowed discovery to proceed." A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the order.
