“I don’t think there’ll be a major impact felt,” Finance Commissioner Adam Greshin told reporters about the administration’s plan. “That was part of the challenge of finding $12.5 million that won’t have a major impact on Vermonters, and I think we’ve done that.”
Lawmakers agreed. The 10-member Joint Fiscal Committee, which oversees state fiscal matters when the full legislature is not is session, unanimously signed off on the proposal Thursday afternoon at a Statehouse meeting.
Rep. Janet Ancel (D-Calais), Joint Fiscal Committee chair, said she was grateful the decisions did not involve state employee layoffs. “I think it’s a thoughtful way to move forward,” she said.
No one spoke at a public hearing on the budget rescissions before lawmakers voted.
The largest single chunk of savings — $4.5 million — will come from an anticipated reduction in Medicaid expenses. Some smaller cuts were found across state government, while there’s a $3.5 million projected increase in revenue from brokers’ fees paid to the Department of Financial Regulation.
Both the legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office and the administration agreed that fewer people in the state will be eligible for Medicaid, the subsidized health coverage available to low-income Vermonters, than in recent years.
The budget cut will not affect coverage for those who are eligible for Medicaid, said Al Gobeille, Agency of Human Services secretary.
Instead, the state now has a better sense of who is, and isn’t, eligible for the program following two years of uncertainty. Vermont used a federal waiver after the Affordable Care Act was implemented to halt a requirement that Medicaid recipients’ coverage be reexamined in 2014 and 2015.
The state resumed “redeterminations” of eligibility in 2016, said Joint Fiscal Office analyst Stephanie Barrett, who worked with the administration on the new projections.
Rep. Bill Lippert (D-Hinesburg), a member of the Joint Fiscal Committee, said he would like to look more closely at the numbers to get an understanding of why fewer people are eligible for Medicaid. For instance, they could be making more money or could have moved out of state — or some other reason.
A full examination would give “some confidence the trend isn’t going to swing the other way,” Lippert said.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I would like to make a comment about Medicaid. I am 65, on medicare and on Medicaid. The problem is this: I just did my review over the phone and they said i am 228.00 over the limit. i am getting the same amount this year as last year so why the problem? They said I am on a spend down so i have to pay that amount in doctor bills before i will be re instated for Medicaid for 6 months! I don’t have that kind of money and what do i have to do, go homeless by not being able to pay rent and pay the doctor bills? Sure medicaire pays for most doctors but some like therapists only accept Medicaid! I think this state needs to update it’s guidelines so it is similar to medicaire that way the elderly/sick won’t be prejudiced against being seen by a provider and this won’t be hanging over their head worrying whether to go without food, pay bills or go homeless. As is, the rents in Burlington are so ridiculously high that it’s not funny and the state could care less about peoples problems!
OK. There was a $28.8 Million ‘revenue downgrade’ discovered in July and I recently listened to a VPR report on how easy it was for our legislators to reduce the budget by $12.5 Million, find $16.3 Million in additional offsets, and not adversely affect Vermonters with layoffs and program cuts.
So…how ‘d they do that? What would have happened if there was no ‘budget gap’? Would the Vermont legislature have taken it upon themselves to be as fiscally prudent as they apparently can be and save Vermont taxpayers the $28.8 Million anyway?