The cut prompted concerns from Rep. David Yacovone (D-Morristown), who said it seems to contradict Scott’s governing platform of protecting Vermont’s most vulnerable.
“This is what’s most upsetting to me: It’s the fairness of, other people throughout this budget are going to get subsidies who have far more wealth, and yet these people are not,” Yacovone said of the disabled Vermonters using the Attendant Services Program.
“The governor said one of his top three themes consistently has been to help the vulnerable,” said Yacovone, a former commissioner of the Department for Children and Families. “I think these people are as vulnerable as it gets.”
Administration officials did not mention the program’s elimination Tuesday in a press briefing about the spending plan, and Scott, in his budget address that day, said nothing about the cut.
Monica Hutt, the commissioner of the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living, told Seven Days Wednesday that the state is not abandoning the disabled Vermonters who use the program, and will help find other resources to assist them.
Hutt said the cut affects disabled Vermonters who do not qualify for Medicaid. Another 90 people who get federal benefits will not be affected.
“We are not looking to hurt people here, so I think we can identify and work to do some gradual transitioning” to other social services programs, Hutt said.
Hutt said officials chose to eliminate the program because, unlike its Medicaid-supported counterpart, the state’s $1.39 million investment isn’t unlocking any federal matching funds to help pay for it.
Hutt said the Attendant Services Program has been “frozen for several years,” meaning no new applicants have been added. In that time, the population using the program has fallen.
“We are seeing gradual attrition of that program anyway, and what our hope is and our intention is, is to really look at — because it’s 43 people, we have the capacity to look at those 43 people individually,” Hutt said.
The administration’s new approach to the Attendant Services Program is to “figure out who each person is and what’s going on for them,” Hutt said.
Hutt said a review process is just beginning. The affected Vermonters have not been notified about the potential cut, which could go into effect as soon as the new fiscal year begins in July.
“I can give you absolutely no guarantees how this is going to end,” Hutt said. “I don’t think that it’s anybody’s intent to just hurt people without any consideration.”
Yacovone said the administration could better protect vulnerable Vermonters by simply adding a wealth-based screening process — just like in the Medicaid version of the program — that ensures only people who need financial assistance are receiving the taxpayer money.
Yacovone said that instead of cutting the program, the state should add limits to cover people who don’t qualify for Medicaid and can’t afford to hire help on their own.
“They didn’t say … ‘OK, everybody who has less than $250,000 is eligible, or less than $500,000, or less than $10,000,’” Yacovone said. “They eliminated them all.”
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Gov. Scott is such a courageous leader. It takes some real hutzpah to stand up to disabled people. What an idiot.
It’s spelled “chutzpah.” And you’re labeling Scott an “idiot?” No mirrors in your residence?
Well, if the state won’t provide it, we can always count on our Federal gov…. oh. Nevermind.
Agree with Mr Yacovone means test it like Medicaid. There are “abuses” of this program.
the war on poverty in Vermont continues
with the coming carbon tax this should kill off the last of the poor folks still surviving in this state which has criminalized being poor
Typical Scott administration. Don’t tell anyone what you’re planning, just thrust it on them without warning, like health insurance for teachers within weeks of the end of the session. Then tell them to trust you to get it done, when they can’t count students or tell what the effects of water rules will have on dairy farms. Then ask for another year to get done what should have been done yesterday. All of this “trustworthy” stuff in his first year doesn’t bode well for the coming year. And we’re to trust them to find mechanisms to aid these disabled people? Like Mitch McConnell’s promises, Phil Scott’s are hard to believe. And if these people are not among the vulnerable ones, who is?
The governor and most elected officials are only concerned with helping the addicts and children. The rest of us sink or swim on our own.
“Gov. Phil Scotts proposed budget would eliminate a $1.39 million program that helps disabled Vermonters…”
Scott is a typical Republican after all. And Monica Hutt states that the intent isn’t to hurt people? Seriously?
It never ceases to amaze me that human services are the first programs that get cut and other top heavy areas are overlooked and continue to drain the budget. What happened to by the people and for the people?
Global picture: People always have been as disposable diapers to those lacking substance that have insulated their wealth to be able to grow it. The mandate for healthcare coverage for those disability called mediedicare is laughable. Most are unable to afford coverage absent Medigap coverage until they are 65. Good Luck. Legalized euthanized choice would be more humane.
Ms. Wanner:
Many, many of us elders have literally begged our state reps to enact legalized euthanasia by choice alias death with dignity as enacted in the Netherlands and several other countries. Many of us elders are terrified by the prospect of a slow, lingering horrible death due to dementia or cancer and the requisite medical costs that will eat up our life savings, leaving nothing to pass on to our heirs (and/or confiscated by rapacious lawmakers (like Bernie) who love the death tax. The fundamental tenet of our Declaration of Independence is the freedom to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet our leglslators deny that fundamental freedom when they refuse to enact a death with dignity statute. Pathetic and shameful.
Nowhere does it say people will be cut off. One might look at this as a way to make government programs more efficient. Why have a 1.4 million dollar program for 49 people? Do all of these people get 28K in benifits? Its not mean to try and make our tax dollars do the most. If all 49 people end up being served by programs which are partially funded by the Federal government wouldn’t that be better? It seems that we attack before anything happened. The current program is ending in 4 months. How about we wait a little and see how it unfolds before
the name calling?