Political Smell Test: Fuzzy math on I-1163 claims

The campaigns fighting over Initiative 1163's heftier training requirements for home care aides are making conflicting claims about the costs to taxpayers if the measure passes.

THE CLAIMS

The No on I-1163 side, which is funded by an association representing adult family homes, says that taxpayers will be on the hook for $80 million over two years if the initiative passes. And because lawmakers face a $2 billion shortfall, money for I-1163 would come from cuts to other elder care programs and education or a tax hike, the "No" side says.

"No" campaign leader Cindy Laws also said in a televised editorial board session with The Olympian that employees' training is taxpayer funded and that "to participate in the mandatory training program, one has to be a member of SEIU.''

Sandeep Kaushik of the Yes on I-1163 campaign says Laws' calculations are deliberately "sloppy." He says that federal and state costs are about $32 million and that about $14.2 million in federal funds and new fees will defray those overall costs, leaving the state to pay about $18 million for the first two years.

The Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775NW has provided more than $1.6 million to the "Yes" campaign - most of it to qualify the measure for the Nov. 8 ballot. But Kaushik denies the forced unionization claim, explaining that the union already represents independent workers who are paid to care for Medicaid clients.

THE FACTS

What is not in dispute is that the measure will increase training requirements to about 75 hours, up from 34 hours, for 50,000 or more home care aides. Training for independent caregivers who cater to Medicaid clients is paid by the government.

The measure also would affect caregivers in boarding homes and adult family homes in 2016 and increases training requirements for family members that are paid under Medicaid to care for a developmentally disabled child or elderly parent. Independent providers and some others also would have to obtain certification from the state.

Taxpayer costs of 1163: The state Office of Financial Management's analysis backs up the "Yes" side, finding that I-1163 would cost $32 million over two years, minus $14.2 million in fees and federal aid, for a net cost of roughly $18 million to the state.

In August, Laws challenged OFM's analysis in a letter to agency director Marty Brown. She argued that Brown failed to include $50 million in costs that she attributes to previously passed Initiative 1029, which has been suspended but is revived by I-1163. Laws said that a fiscal analysis for House Bill 1548, which suspended I-1029's provisions for a couple of years, shows that level of savings.

But Laws appears to lump the costs for both initiatives and pin them all on I-1163 while exaggerating the savings from suspending I-1029 (a fiscal note shows costs for long-term care and developmental disabilities programs are closer to $46 million).

What's more, some costs of I-1029 have already been paid - i.e., curriculum for the 75-hour training has been developed and approved for several training outlets.

The Department of Health hired New Jersey-based firm Prometric last year to develop tests for graduates of the 75-hour training to "certify" them as competent home care aides, and the state has been ready to certify since Jan. 1, said Blake Maresh, an executive director for professional standards at DOH.

Maresh admitted there would be some costs to revive the program in 2014, under I-1029's suspended provisions, or next January if I-1163 passes.

Cuts to elder care or tax hikes: Proponents admit they did not provide a funding source for I-1029 or I-1163. But they argue that the Legislature can act on its own to eliminate tax breaks for interest groups, raise taxes, or seek cuts in other areas - and the decision is better made by the Legislature as it weighs all state needs.

But lawmakers' hands are tied with a budget shortfall estimated at upward of $2 billion. It is reasonable to think that the Legislature will either have to suspend I-1163 - which Democratic Rep. Tami Green is predicting - raise revenues or make cuts in other programs.

It is also reasonable to think lawmakers would try to shield programs that put seniors and disabled people in harm's way.

Forced unionization and paid training: Employees who care for Medicaid patients as individual providers are covered by a contract that SEIU negotiated with the state after voters approved I-775 in 2001, according to long-term care experts at the state Department of Social and Health Services' aging and disability services administration.

The state pays about 17 cents for every hour spent providing long-term care to Medicaid clients. That money goes into a trust that pays for training. The trust is used to fund The Training Partnership, which is affiliated with SEIU but is nonprofit and provides training to individual providers, according to DSHS. Union members are compensated for the time they spend in training, which is provided to them without charge; I-1163 does not change that set-up.

Lorrie Mahar, office chief overseeing training and quality standards for DSHS, said there was no requirement under I-1029 that workers join a union or obtain training from The Training Partnership. Moreover, during the six months that 75-hour training was offered this year, Bill Moss of DSHS said he did not notice any spike in unionization.

BOTTOM LINE

Claims that I-1163 will hijack workers into the SEIU union local are overblown. But it is true that care workers in adult family homes and boarding homes, who would eventually have to increase their training and become certified, would not have the same guarantees of free training as union members.

Also exaggerated is the argument that taxpayers must pay $80 million over the next two years if the measure passes.

However, Laws is correct to say that costs paid by the federal government are still costs paid by taxpayers. She also can justifiably argue that cost estimates prepared by OFM could be low. But those estimates - being just estimates - also could be high.

- - -

Something fishy? Having trouble sorting out the facts from the spin in political speeches, TV ads and mailers? Our political team is ready to fact-check this season's campaign. Send your questions to Political Smell Test at smelltest@thenewstribune.com.