Those who know me, know that for several years as the Albany County, NY Commissioner of Management & Budget, I developed and pushed very hard for a strategy to expand home and community based long-term care services and to close the Albany County Nursing Home. I thought and still think that this direction made much more sense for those needing some form of public long-term care support and it made vastly more sense financially and for taxpayers. The County Executive, Michael Breslin became a strong advocate of this strategy.

We won the first phase, expanding home and community based services, though not without a fight with the County Legislature. There were a number of elements to this phase, among them an expansion of Expanded In-Home Services for the Elderly Program (EISEP) services beyond what was required to achieve State matching funds and the creation of a crisis case management program.

We had a partial victory in the second phase when the “Berger Commission” required that the County close the smaller and older of its two nursing homes (the Ann Lee Home), which was not much more than a glorified adult home. It had the lowest case mix intensity of all nursing homes in New York. Moreover, the Berger Commission” required that the remaining Albany County Nursing Home downsize to no more than 250 beds. So the net reduction in nursing home beds, from 595 beds to 250, was 345.

But after that the fight was bitter and we lost. The County Legislature, in response to a half-dozen patient family members (oddly enough, led by a couple of Tea Party activists who hate government programs and spending except for their own) and unions representing the Nursing Home staff (about a third of whom live outside the County), repeatedly increased the County Budget enabling it to survive.

And here’s where it gets really interesting. The remaining building, built around 1972, is tired, and expensive to maintain and operate. So the Albany County Legislature pushed ahead to build a new nursing home. Their design is an expensive one and their own architects and consultants cost it out at about $82 million. Those same architects and consultants also estimated that the most the County could expect to recover in capital reimbursement would be about $58 million. Thus, the County will have to absorb a direct expense for the capital alone of about $24 million (amortized, I’m sure).

That increased capital expense is on top of an operating loss approaching $20 million per year. This is the direct cost to the County over and above Medicaid, Medicare, VA and private patient, and other third-party reimbursement. The administrator of one local not-for-profit nursing home of comparable size was rightly offended that the County loses a figure close to the private facility’s entire budget.

And this is for about 240 patients per year and a maximum of 250 patients at any given time.

And now it gets even more interesting …

There are several Legislators (who knows, it may be a majority), who are counting on New York State to turn down the County’s Certificate of Need (CON) application to build a new facility. There are good arguments for the State to do so and we’ll return to that later. But what these Legislators don’t understand is that such a State decision would not take them off the hook. It would force them into a deeper mess. How?

A New York State decision not to allow Albany County to build a new nursing home is not the same as the State requiring the County to close its existing facility. That decision would remain with the County … while it continued to operate a tired, unattractive, increasingly expensive to maintain physical plant.

And an Albany County Legislative decision to close down will be much harder politically today than it might have been before because they have already invested so much politically, substantively, and financially in maintaining the fiction that it’s essential. They’ve trapped themselves.

In the meantime, other New York Counties are rushing to get out of the nursing home business, but it’s getting harder and harder to sell because the long-term financial prospects for any nursing home are dimming. Suffolk County had a buyer for its facility, but the buyer backed out after legislative delays and after changes in State Medicaid policy which portend a financially dismal future.

The Orange County budget was just released and the property tax increase was less than the tax cap of two percent. How was that possible with everything else going on? What made it possible was the proposed closure or sale of the county nursing home. At least in this case, the legislative leadership, however regretfully, has recognized reality and agreed with the County Executive. Franklin County has agreed to turn over its nursing home to the local hospital and to pay the hospital to take it off its hands.

At a time when county officials in New York are complaining bitterly about “State mandates,” many have at least recognized that one of their most expensive services, nursing homes, is not mandated. Indeed the State would quietly prefer that they get out of the business.

Albany County is an exception to that and the reason is a failure of legislative leadership. Those needing long-term care services will pay and Albany County taxpayers will pay for decades.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Numbers News

by John W Rodat on September 29, 2011

Just for a taste. Though most of the taste is bitter

Roubini says the economy has started a downturn.spending less on entertainment and charity. Guess we can’t count on charity to help those who are struggling in a down eocnomy.

Fifth consecutive year that US cities suffer a revenue decline. Original study was done of the National League of Cities and you’ll find it here. Sales, income and property taxes down.

Local governments, despite their financial strains are attempting to take advantage of low interest rates and borrow money. It will be interesting to see the aggregate numbers as state and local government debts remained relatively stable while the rest of the economy borrowed. Now individuals and families are deleveraging.

And speaking of bitter, I’m not publishing the baseball scores. Go find them yourself.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Nassau County, NY is already in deep, deep financial trouble. Despite the fact that it is one of if not the wealthiest county in New York, its finances are currently being overseen by a state-sponsored and enforced financial control board.

Despite their weakened financial straits, Nassau proposed borrowing $400 million for a new hockey arena. Worse, it was an iffy enough proposition that rather than proposing revenue bonds that would be paid off by “incremental sales tax increases and concession receipts, Nassau proposed a general obligation bond, which, by definition, is guaranteed by the County and which would be paid off by increased property taxes.

The voters defeated the bond authorization by a hefty margin.

The result was a voter turnout of 17 percent — five times what proponents had expected for a Monday in August — and a rejection of the stadium plan, 57 percent to 43 percent.

A seventeen percent turnout is higher than for these types of votes. How bad is that?

And if the Islanders do leave as threatened?

By late Tuesday, Mr. Mangano’s aides were privately playing down the failure of the proposal, suggesting that Mr. Mangano’s goal all along was to be able to say he had done all he could to keep the Islanders in Nassau. Now, if they leave, voters will have only themselves to blame.

Like I said, “Good.”

Update:

Bloomberg is now reporting that the County will seek private funding. Why didn’t they do that in the first place?

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

The Economist has just published an important analysis and graphic, “Where federal taxes are raised and spent,” on which states send more tax money to the Federal government than they receive back in benefits.

This is an issue that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to focus an annual analysis on. But to my knowledge it hasn’t been replicated since he retired from the Senate.

Though the topic is important. It’s particularly interesting and perhaps ironic that those states which appear to benefit the most are also those which tend to resist Federal spending. So reductions in Federal budgets are likely to hurt them the most.

From a technical perspective, I do have one gripe. Perhaps it’s me, but I thought the titling and legend were ambiguous. I had to read the text to be certain that I was interpreting the map correctly. “Surplus” most typically means an excess of revenue over spending and “deficit” means revenue is less than spending. Though not perfectly analogous, the meaning here seems to be reversed. For example, Delaware sent (“spent” by my interpretation) $211.1 billion in taxes to the Federal government, but the Federal government only spent $86.4 billion in Delaware. Anybody else have that problem?

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Unfunded Mandates?

by John W Rodat on August 2, 2011

A major complaint of counties in New York, even before the State imposed a cap (porous, but a cap) on increases in property taxes, the constant refrain was that the State mandated a host of requirements that generate costs, but which the State doesn’t pay at least part of it.

However, about 40 counties operate nursing homes and a few operate hospitals and virtually all of them lose money on a regular basis. Yet there is no mandate that counties operate such services.

Indeed, not only is there no mandate, but counties regularly complain that the State does not pay them enough through Medicaid, i.e., from the county perspective, New York should pay more and should increase Medicaid expenditures.

Facing new economic constraints, a number of counties are now evaluating ways and means of getting out of the healthcare business. These counties include:

  • Cattaraugus, which is seeking consultant services to identify and evaluate alternatives.
  • Washington, which is looking to sell
  • Franklin, has already agreed to turn over its nursing home to the local hospital (and merge it with its own nursing home). Franklin is even making a one-time payment to the hospital to take over the operation.
  • Suffolk, which attempted to sell its nursing home and budgeted based on the assumption that it would not be operated by the County. However, ultimately the buyer balked and change ground to a standstill. Closure opponents went to court and got a temporary restraining order. The TRO was lifted this past week, but the issue is still unresolved.
  • Ulster, where a proposal is controversial
  • Rockland, which is considering a public benefit corporation

Though the long-range trend has been obvious for several years, most counties resisted even talking openly about the issue. There are now strong indications that it may be too late to sell or sale prices are diminishing because attractiveness of the nursing home business is diminishing. This was true even before the Federal debt ceiling compromise which is likely to lead to long range reductions in both Medicare and Medicaid.

We’ll update this list. If you’ve got news, send it along or comment.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

My working assumptions have been that any deal on the debt ceiling would impair an economic recovery.

The estimates are now beginning to come in.

Here’s Macroadvisors, Debt Ceiling Deal: Little Fiscal Drag in ’12, Big Risk in ’13. And here’s Brad DeLong’s response.

We’ll add more as we find them.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

I’m not the only one

by John Rodat on July 28, 2011

Lawrence O’Donnell just said the solution would be for Boehner to get the Democrats and about 50 “not-crazy” Republicans to pass the debt ceiling increase. Same strategy as I mentioned here.

But then he pointed out that Boehner has never done anything to draw Democratic votes.

Oh well.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

At this point, the House Republicans has postponed the vote on Boehner’s bill extending the debt ceiling and cutting the budget. Right now, the Republicans don’t have the votes to even pass their own bill.

Reminds me of an incident years ago in the NYS Assembly. The parties and positions were the inverse of what we’re looking at now, but the mechanics were the same.

At the time, in the midst of a fiscal crisis, then Governor Hugh Carey (D) sent a very tough budget to the Legislature. The Democrats had a narrow majority in the Assembly (81-69). Among the Democrats were at least seven from relatively conservative upstate districts who had been elected in the aftermath of Watergate affair. Their wins had been close.

As staff of the Committee on Ways & Means, I sat in on a meeting between Speaker’s the senior political and budget staff and a key set of legislators and legislative staff on their priorities to fight in the Governor’s budget. Unrealistically, they wanted virtually everything restored. Told to come back with a less ambitious list, they came back with an even more expensive list.

The leadership reaction was attuned it to the concerns of their members and their constituencies and they strongly supported the programs in which cuts had been proposed. But they were also aware of and took seriously the State’s financial distress. So their reaction to a more expensive list was quite different from what’s going on in the House.

The reaction was immediate, fierce, and profane. The threat was to match the Democrats from the competitive districts with the Republicans and pass an even more draconian budget. It made a difference and the rebellion was short-lived.

More important than partisan advantage, ideological or program preference, the Democratic leadership was more concerned about the entire State and it acted accordingly.

Too bad we’re not seeing similar behavior in DC these days.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

I keep thinking that this debt ceiling debacle is the result of a political gimmick whose origin is long forgotten. During decades of work in public finance, I’ve certainly seen more than my share. Somebody probably thought it was an essentially harmless but useful political symbol to buy a few votes on a budget or related issue or to get out of a bind.

But its importance grew. And now it’s a cancer.

The debt ceiling grew as an issue; it became a convenient whipping boy over decades, but wasn’t used seriously … until it was. And so here we are on the verge of a disaster, not one with financial origins, but governance origins. Not that I have the time, but my inclination is to do some research on the history. However, in the meantime, people whose knowledge of the budget and how government works and worse, of the Constitution, are using it for their own ideological and political purposes and researching history is a luxury while the crazies are looking to burn down the house.

Nonetheless, we should learn from this debacle and not create an even greater budgetary gimmick, indeed the mother of all budgetary gimmicks, the so-called “balanced budget amendment.” Aside from the fact that as a matter of financial and economic policy, it’s a stupid idea, the proposed “balanced budget amendment” is another gimmick. Even though it’s grossly misleading, it sounds simple and obvious. Until you think about it. And though it doesn’t take much thinking about it, that’s more than many advocates have given it.

Take for example, Congressman Joe Walsh, who among others said that he would vote for an increase in the debt ceiling after the adoption of a balanced budget amendment. In another case of yelling at the TV, I begged for the reporter/interviewer, in this case, Lawrence O’Donnell, to ask him a couple of basic questions like:

    Well, how long do you think that might take?

    Do you know what the shortest elapsed time has been to adopt a Constitutional Amendment? (Answer 107 days for the 26th Amendment ensuring that 18-year olds would have the right to vote.)

    Assuming that the amendment you want would be adopted equally quickly, what parts of the Federal Government should be shut down during those 107 days?

And then of course there are a few other questions like:

    Do you know how amendments are adopted?

    The House of Representatives just voted on your cut, cap, and balance scheme and it got 236 votes, or 54 percent. A Constitutional amendment that goes through the Congressional process requires a two-thirds majority (290 votes). Where are your extra votes going to come from?

    Why do you think you can get a two-thirds majority in the Senate?

    How is it that you expect to get three-quarters of the states to adopt your amendment at all, much less anytime soon?

    So presumably, you want to shut down about half of the Federal Government indefinitely. Can we start with your state?

So unless this guy can answer these questions (well, maybe not the last one), we shouldn’t take him seriously on this or any other issue. He’s just talking over-simplified mush, probably given to him by someone else. But it’s dangerous mush. And even more dangerous is that someone who clearly doesn’t understand the basics of how we govern ourselves is not only susceptible to this garbage, but he spews it himself.

Well, that’s just on how a balanced budget amendment might get adopted. What if it were? Well first off, you’ll turn over significant influence if not outright control to a bunch of statistical geeks who will “count” what GDP is. And then you’ll have wars over what the proper count should be. Imagine the fights we’ll have over improving statistical and economic methodologies.

And you’ll turn over control of the Federal Budget and the economy to, brace yourselves, judges! Activist Judges! Here’s Brad Plumer on the debacle that that would be.

One of the big unanswered questions about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution — the new favorite policy of tea party types everywhere — is how it would even work in practice. Sure, the basics are easy to understand: Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee’s proposed amendment in the Senate, for instance, says that spending can’t exceed revenue for a given fiscal year, and spending can’t go above 18 percent of GDP, unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approves. (There’s a war exception.) But how would this rule actually be enforced?

Lee’s bill, for one, would allow any member of Congress to file a lawsuit if a budget violates the Constitution. “The bar for a lawsuit would be pretty low,” explains Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center. So take an easy case: Congress passes a budget that either runs a deficit or tries to hide the deficit through accounting tricks. Jim DeMint gets annoyed and files a lawsuit. The courts could order an injunction and block the spending bills — which could, in turn, shut down the government unless Congress scrambles to fix it. (And, given that the Congress needs a two-thirds majority to raise taxes or run a deficit, “scrambling” might be a tall order.)

But it doesn’t stop there. The court could also just step in and make decisions about what exactly to cut, in order to bring the budget in line with the Constitution. In Hatch and Lee’s proposal, the courts couldn’t order tax increases, but they could mandate specific cuts. “They’d have a lot of latitude,” says Kendall. “Do they start setting budgetary policy? Which wars we fight, which veterans we provide for, whether Grandma gets her Social Security benefits — these are the choices we’d be authorizing the court to make.” It seems preposterous, but nothing would bar Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg from donning green eyeshades, breaking out their adding calculators and going through the budget line by line. If you love judicial activism, you’ll love this provision.

So to get out of a small mess, people and organizations, and governments, engage in gimmickry that create traps that will ultimately create even bigger traps until the whole structure falls in a large scale disaster. We’re facing a huge disaster now, but a balanced budget amendment would be even worse. I’ll take the disaster now in the hopes that we’ll learn something from it. A balanced budget amendment would make the disaster permanent.

___________
This post was edited after original publication to fill in some data that had been originally omitted.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

A useful reminder. Eleven ways to lie with statistics.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }