It happens. It’s difficult. As a loved one grows old, caring for elderly parents can become a challenge.
Managers of adult day centers believe that they have a viable solution for many families, the reason they intend to vigorously fight for more funding during the spring legislative session.
The Connecticut Association of Adult Day Centers (CAADC) is pushing for more financial support from the state as adult day care centers increasingly face fiscal hardships.
“Absolutely, it’s tough,” said Holly Vannucci, CAADC president and director of the Enfield Adult Day Center. “The reimbursement from the state doesn’t go far and it’s a real problem.”
There are about 50 certified day centers operating in the state, but 16 have closed their doors in the past five years, many because there wasn’t enough money to stay afloat.
CAADC leaders argue that the state’s reimbursement rate of $63.55 per day falls short of what it actually costs to provide care for elderly clients, which averages about $78.
“[The state] reimbursement is very, very low,” Vannucci said. “For seven hours a day, we provide comprehensive care for our clients, including medicines, meals, activities and therapy.”
Reimbursements Fall Short
Although the state’s contributions have gone up by nearly 16 percent over the past four years — from $54.93 per day to of $63.55 per day — operators of adult day care centers maintain that costs have skyrocketed.
Costs have nearly doubled since 2000, increasing from $41 to $78.
Vannucci cited transportation as a factor, noting that Dial-A-Ride services for Enfield, Somers and Suffield provide free transportation to the facility. But the Dial-A-Ride in East Windsor, from which some clients reside, does not. The onus then falls on the center to burden those transportation costs.
“Transportation has become our number one issue,” she said.
Leading the charge for the adult day care centers at the state Capitol is Pat Rockwell, administrator of Senior Care Center of Hartford and a member of the CAADC. She spoke at a legislative hearing last week to further their case.
“This is something that continually comes up every year,” she said. “We’re the gap in long-term care for the elderly.”
Going Home
In lobbying legislators, Rockwell points out what day centers provide for thousands of families
across the state.
“It’s such an important respite for all families that are in dire need,” she said. “Not to mention what it does for the actual person who isn’t stuck in a house all day looking at four walls.”
The services day centers provide are similar to what a nursing home does but with one major difference. “They get to go home at night,” Rockwell said.
As with many state-funded social programs, it’s a battle for dollars. Lobbying is expected to get even tougher this session with recession fears.
“Everyone recognizes there’s an issue, but we know that there’s only one pot of money,” Vannucci said.
Legislators are aware of the need. A CGA study found that 80 percent of residents want to remain in their communities when requiring long-term care. State Commission on Aging executive director Julia Evans Starr said the findings “strongly reinforce the fact that we need to rebalance the long-term care system.”
Adult day care centers will continue to state their case and hope help arrives before more centers bite the dust.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
As Green As Granny Apple Pie
From Al Gore’s crusade to the political debate about global warming, environmental issues have dominated headlines for the past several years. However, with criminal justice reform and the recession topping state legislators’ concerns in recent weeks, where will that leave green advocacy during the spring session?
In particular, how will the hot-button issues about criminal reform and the foreclosure crisis affect efforts to pass two key environmental bills in the coming session: reducing carbon emissions and doubling the state appropriation to protect the state’s natural resources.
“It’s not really clear yet what impact the economy is going to have on environmental issues,” said lobbyist Mary Guinan, president of MP Guinan Associates.
Guinan represents a handful of clients, such as Connecticut Fund for the Environment, who want legislators to adopt more stringent environmental laws.
As such, her clients have benefited in recent years from the publicity garnered by environmentalists. Getting on the green bandwagon also helps lawmakers get their names in the news. From Guinan’s experiences, lawmakers like seeing their names in print — and she believes that won’t change.
Easing Fiscal Concerns
“When you talk about protecting or investing in the environment, that’s an issue that will always be tremendously popular,” Guinan said. “You can’t open the newspaper without reading about companies going green or alternative energy. I still think it’s very timely.”
The pitch that Guinan gives to ease fiscal concerns is that environmental funding goes a long way. “Investing in the environment is an investment in the future,” she said. “It doesn’t have the impact now, maybe, but it can mean a lot in five to 10 years. We have to start planning now.”
Looking at the future is the key point of two environmental bills that are expected to make their way to the state Capitol — a carbon cap on emissions and the Face of Connecticut campaign to nearly double environmental funding.
The carbon cap, pushed by the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, would mandate that emissions in the sate be cut by 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. Connecticut enacted a voluntary carbon cap in 2004, but environmental activists are concerned the state is slipping.
The proposal by Face of Connecticut — a coalition of roughly 70 organizations, from the Connecticut chapter of the Appalachian Mountain Club to the Norwalk Historical Society — wants the state to fund all preservation and environmental programs with a $100 million annual lump sum for the next 10 years. The coalition estimates that roughly half of this sum would be new funding.
Lobbyist Michael Dugan, vice president of government relations for MP Guinan Associates, said the Face of Connecticut is unique because its aim is for the state to fund all aspect of environmental and preservation issues at once, instead of doling out specific grants to different groups from year to year.
“It’s an impressive group, a mixture of grassroots organizations and bigger companies,” said Robyn Gengras, media relations with Duby McDowell Communications, which is working with the group.
The prevailing belief is that a coalition of environmental groups will provide a united front for lobbying efforts. The hope is that enough voices in unison will be enough to sway legislators to cough up an additional $50 million a year to protect the state’s natural resources.
In particular, how will the hot-button issues about criminal reform and the foreclosure crisis affect efforts to pass two key environmental bills in the coming session: reducing carbon emissions and doubling the state appropriation to protect the state’s natural resources.
“It’s not really clear yet what impact the economy is going to have on environmental issues,” said lobbyist Mary Guinan, president of MP Guinan Associates.
Guinan represents a handful of clients, such as Connecticut Fund for the Environment, who want legislators to adopt more stringent environmental laws.
As such, her clients have benefited in recent years from the publicity garnered by environmentalists. Getting on the green bandwagon also helps lawmakers get their names in the news. From Guinan’s experiences, lawmakers like seeing their names in print — and she believes that won’t change.
Easing Fiscal Concerns
“When you talk about protecting or investing in the environment, that’s an issue that will always be tremendously popular,” Guinan said. “You can’t open the newspaper without reading about companies going green or alternative energy. I still think it’s very timely.”
The pitch that Guinan gives to ease fiscal concerns is that environmental funding goes a long way. “Investing in the environment is an investment in the future,” she said. “It doesn’t have the impact now, maybe, but it can mean a lot in five to 10 years. We have to start planning now.”
Looking at the future is the key point of two environmental bills that are expected to make their way to the state Capitol — a carbon cap on emissions and the Face of Connecticut campaign to nearly double environmental funding.
The carbon cap, pushed by the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, would mandate that emissions in the sate be cut by 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. Connecticut enacted a voluntary carbon cap in 2004, but environmental activists are concerned the state is slipping.
The proposal by Face of Connecticut — a coalition of roughly 70 organizations, from the Connecticut chapter of the Appalachian Mountain Club to the Norwalk Historical Society — wants the state to fund all preservation and environmental programs with a $100 million annual lump sum for the next 10 years. The coalition estimates that roughly half of this sum would be new funding.
Lobbyist Michael Dugan, vice president of government relations for MP Guinan Associates, said the Face of Connecticut is unique because its aim is for the state to fund all aspect of environmental and preservation issues at once, instead of doling out specific grants to different groups from year to year.
“It’s an impressive group, a mixture of grassroots organizations and bigger companies,” said Robyn Gengras, media relations with Duby McDowell Communications, which is working with the group.
The prevailing belief is that a coalition of environmental groups will provide a united front for lobbying efforts. The hope is that enough voices in unison will be enough to sway legislators to cough up an additional $50 million a year to protect the state’s natural resources.
Monday, February 11, 2008
More Protection For Transsexuals
There are state statutes that prohibit discrimination based on race, religion or sexual orientation. Although the phrase “gender identity or expression” was included in the state’s hate crime laws in 2004, the Connecticut TransAdvocacy Coalition believes discrimination continues to occur, particularly when transsexuals are passed over for jobs or places to live.
“There is no protection under state statues,” said Jerimarie Liesegang, the coalition’s executive director. “It’s not an issue of special rights; it’s an issue of basic human rights.”
The group is now lobbying for a bill that provides additional protection against transsexual and transgender discrimination.
The bill first made its way to the state capitol in 2006 and received a public hearing before being successfully passed through the judiciary committee. In 2007, the bill had more success as it passed the state senate but failed to receive a formal vote from state representatives before the 2007 session closed.
Special Rights
The three-year journey may not have been what advocates had in mind, but the delays have served to further the education and socialization of the issue.
“The two sessions we’ve been through have been favorable because people have been able to socialize with the issue and understand it,” Liesegang said. “It’s given us more of an opportunity to talk to legislators and let them know what’s going on.”
From personal experience, Liesegang has felt the impact of discrimination.
“I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and for a long time, I couldn’t find a job,” Liesegang said.
Transsexuals contend they have been passed over time and again for jobs and housing.
“It’s something that a lot of people don’t understand,” Liesegang said. “There have been more porblmes with transgender and transsexuals being pased over for housing. Don’t all people deserve a place to live?”
But not everyone is on the same page as Liesegang. Opponents believe additional legislative provides special rights and over-reaching protection to transsexuals.
Family Institute of Connecticut executive director Peter Wolfgang said his group opposes the bill
because it would tie the hands of boards of educations.
“We have our concerns over very young children being exposed to gender identity confusion,” he said. “Hypothetically, imagine if your child has a second grade teacher Mr. Smith and he comes back a month later after a sex-change operation as Mrs. Smith. The board of education ought to have the right to do something.”
More Education
Despite the opposition, the coalition is hopeful that a bill will be passed in the upcoming session.
In 2007, the bill passed the state Senate by a 30 to 4 margin and a preliminary vote in the state House of Representatives registered 111 legislators in favor.
Without a formal lobbyist, Liesegang said the coalition will rely on its members talking personally to their local legislators to push its cause.
“The most important thing we do is tell stories,” Liesegang said. “We have people just explain to the legislators what they’ve been through and what they’ve faced. We found it to be a good way of getting our point across, face to face.”
That push will continue later this month as Feb. 20 has been set aside for Trans Educational Forum and Lobby Day at the state capitol. Between 11 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., the coalition will have a forum at the legislative office building and some of its members will meet with legislators, in addition to rallying.
“We know that there are a lot of other bills out there and other issues,” Liesegang said. “We’re very confident based on how close we got last year and the response we’ve gotten from legislators.”
“There is no protection under state statues,” said Jerimarie Liesegang, the coalition’s executive director. “It’s not an issue of special rights; it’s an issue of basic human rights.”
The group is now lobbying for a bill that provides additional protection against transsexual and transgender discrimination.
The bill first made its way to the state capitol in 2006 and received a public hearing before being successfully passed through the judiciary committee. In 2007, the bill had more success as it passed the state senate but failed to receive a formal vote from state representatives before the 2007 session closed.
Special Rights
The three-year journey may not have been what advocates had in mind, but the delays have served to further the education and socialization of the issue.
“The two sessions we’ve been through have been favorable because people have been able to socialize with the issue and understand it,” Liesegang said. “It’s given us more of an opportunity to talk to legislators and let them know what’s going on.”
From personal experience, Liesegang has felt the impact of discrimination.
“I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and for a long time, I couldn’t find a job,” Liesegang said.
Transsexuals contend they have been passed over time and again for jobs and housing.
“It’s something that a lot of people don’t understand,” Liesegang said. “There have been more porblmes with transgender and transsexuals being pased over for housing. Don’t all people deserve a place to live?”
But not everyone is on the same page as Liesegang. Opponents believe additional legislative provides special rights and over-reaching protection to transsexuals.
Family Institute of Connecticut executive director Peter Wolfgang said his group opposes the bill
because it would tie the hands of boards of educations.
“We have our concerns over very young children being exposed to gender identity confusion,” he said. “Hypothetically, imagine if your child has a second grade teacher Mr. Smith and he comes back a month later after a sex-change operation as Mrs. Smith. The board of education ought to have the right to do something.”
More Education
Despite the opposition, the coalition is hopeful that a bill will be passed in the upcoming session.
In 2007, the bill passed the state Senate by a 30 to 4 margin and a preliminary vote in the state House of Representatives registered 111 legislators in favor.
Without a formal lobbyist, Liesegang said the coalition will rely on its members talking personally to their local legislators to push its cause.
“The most important thing we do is tell stories,” Liesegang said. “We have people just explain to the legislators what they’ve been through and what they’ve faced. We found it to be a good way of getting our point across, face to face.”
That push will continue later this month as Feb. 20 has been set aside for Trans Educational Forum and Lobby Day at the state capitol. Between 11 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., the coalition will have a forum at the legislative office building and some of its members will meet with legislators, in addition to rallying.
“We know that there are a lot of other bills out there and other issues,” Liesegang said. “We’re very confident based on how close we got last year and the response we’ve gotten from legislators.”
Monday, February 4, 2008
Kick-Starting Startups
For the second consecutive legislative session, the Connecticut Technology Council and Connecticut Innovations will be asking lawmakers to adopt a bill that would give tax credits to angel investors, members of the private sector that fund entrepreneurial dreams.
In fact, most states — 37 — have angel investment legislation. “It’s hardly a new occurrence,” said Matthew Nemerson, president and CEO of CTC. But so far, Connecticut hasn’t signed up.
Last year, a bill that would give angel investors a tax credit made it through the General Assembly’s commerce committee. But that is as far as the bill got.
“I think instituting a new credit into the political debate is not a one-session issue,” Nemerson said. “We were delighted with how much traction it gained last year.”
CTC’s proposal is to give angel investors a 35 percent tax credit for their investment, which they can take over five years. The tax credits would be awarded only if there are actual investments.
The proposal is based on the notion that successful new companies will provide a greater tax benefit to the state in the future.
The CTC believes that $15 million of tax credits could leverage $43 million in new angel investments in Connecticut startups.
Nemerson said the initial cost to implement the program would be about $50 million. However, he is well aware that the state government’s two-year budget setup is a hurdle that needs to be overcome.
“We know it’s the second year of a two-year budget and there isn’t really an appetite for things that have a fiscal impact, even if it could have a positive economic impact,” he said. “I’m confident that people will continue to talk about this and how it can be a tool to increase jobs and stimulate the economy.”
CI On Board
The fact that Connecticut is late on this trend may provide a boost to CTC’s cause because they have the reports from other states who have implemented tax credits. “We’ve just gotten a report from Wisconsin and we’re going to get them from other states that show they are happy with their returns,” Nemerson said.
Wisconsin, for example, has increased the cap to their tax credit from an initial $13 million to $23 million as a result of early success.
CI is also on board with CTC’s angel investment proposal. The quasi-public agency testified in favor of such a proposal last March. However, CI also is looking to secure more state funding of their own to become a pseudo-angel investor.
Emily Smith, CI’s managing director for external relations and government relations, said CI is proposing to receive a steady stream of state funding yearly so it can invest in seed programs and young startups.
From 1989 to 1995, CI received $65 million in bonding. However, it has not received new funding since, Smith said. In regard to CI’s seed programs, the agency plans to ask state lawmakers to allocate between $3 million and $5 million annually.
Currently, CI’s seed program is funded from the return earned on previous investments.
Smith described CI as a “step above” angel investors, as CI usually gets involved after an entrepreneur has put up his or her own money, asked family and friends for financial support, and has turned to wealthy private individuals.
In fact, most states — 37 — have angel investment legislation. “It’s hardly a new occurrence,” said Matthew Nemerson, president and CEO of CTC. But so far, Connecticut hasn’t signed up.
Last year, a bill that would give angel investors a tax credit made it through the General Assembly’s commerce committee. But that is as far as the bill got.
“I think instituting a new credit into the political debate is not a one-session issue,” Nemerson said. “We were delighted with how much traction it gained last year.”
CTC’s proposal is to give angel investors a 35 percent tax credit for their investment, which they can take over five years. The tax credits would be awarded only if there are actual investments.
The proposal is based on the notion that successful new companies will provide a greater tax benefit to the state in the future.
The CTC believes that $15 million of tax credits could leverage $43 million in new angel investments in Connecticut startups.
Nemerson said the initial cost to implement the program would be about $50 million. However, he is well aware that the state government’s two-year budget setup is a hurdle that needs to be overcome.
“We know it’s the second year of a two-year budget and there isn’t really an appetite for things that have a fiscal impact, even if it could have a positive economic impact,” he said. “I’m confident that people will continue to talk about this and how it can be a tool to increase jobs and stimulate the economy.”
CI On Board
The fact that Connecticut is late on this trend may provide a boost to CTC’s cause because they have the reports from other states who have implemented tax credits. “We’ve just gotten a report from Wisconsin and we’re going to get them from other states that show they are happy with their returns,” Nemerson said.
Wisconsin, for example, has increased the cap to their tax credit from an initial $13 million to $23 million as a result of early success.
CI is also on board with CTC’s angel investment proposal. The quasi-public agency testified in favor of such a proposal last March. However, CI also is looking to secure more state funding of their own to become a pseudo-angel investor.
Emily Smith, CI’s managing director for external relations and government relations, said CI is proposing to receive a steady stream of state funding yearly so it can invest in seed programs and young startups.
From 1989 to 1995, CI received $65 million in bonding. However, it has not received new funding since, Smith said. In regard to CI’s seed programs, the agency plans to ask state lawmakers to allocate between $3 million and $5 million annually.
Currently, CI’s seed program is funded from the return earned on previous investments.
Smith described CI as a “step above” angel investors, as CI usually gets involved after an entrepreneur has put up his or her own money, asked family and friends for financial support, and has turned to wealthy private individuals.
Friday, February 1, 2008
The Governor's Ethics Proposals
From today's HBJ Today, here's a brief look at Gov. Jodi Rell's ethics proposals. For the entire press release, click here.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell today said her proposals for the coming legislative session will include a sweeping ethics bill that will greatly increase the number and type of government officials required to file financial disclosures, make the spouse of a governor a "public official" for purposes of the ethics code and allow a judge to reduce or revoke the pension of a corrupt state employee or public official.
Under Rell's proposals, financial disclosures will be required from executive department division heads, all professional employees of the legislature (including chiefs of staff, committee administrators, attorneys, research analysts and fiscal analysts), any state employee whose responsibilities include participating in the award of contracts valued at $10,000 or more and chiefs of staff to both the governor and the lieutenant governor.
"We have long demanded that lawmakers disclose potential financial conflicts of interests - it is only right that we expect the same level of disclosure from the top-level officials who also deal with major state contracts," Rell said in a statement. "My bill would also strengthen Freedom of Information requirements so that the minutes of an agency's public meeting would have to be posted on its Web site within a week. And my legislation finally makes it clear that Connecticut will no longer allow corrupt public employees to benefit from a pension if they have been convicted of cheating the state."
Gov. M. Jodi Rell today said her proposals for the coming legislative session will include a sweeping ethics bill that will greatly increase the number and type of government officials required to file financial disclosures, make the spouse of a governor a "public official" for purposes of the ethics code and allow a judge to reduce or revoke the pension of a corrupt state employee or public official.
Under Rell's proposals, financial disclosures will be required from executive department division heads, all professional employees of the legislature (including chiefs of staff, committee administrators, attorneys, research analysts and fiscal analysts), any state employee whose responsibilities include participating in the award of contracts valued at $10,000 or more and chiefs of staff to both the governor and the lieutenant governor.
"We have long demanded that lawmakers disclose potential financial conflicts of interests - it is only right that we expect the same level of disclosure from the top-level officials who also deal with major state contracts," Rell said in a statement. "My bill would also strengthen Freedom of Information requirements so that the minutes of an agency's public meeting would have to be posted on its Web site within a week. And my legislation finally makes it clear that Connecticut will no longer allow corrupt public employees to benefit from a pension if they have been convicted of cheating the state."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
