Copyright 2001 Star Tribune  
Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
May 15, 2001, Tuesday, Metro Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 4B

LENGTH: 841 words

HEADLINE: Abortion measure is but one facet of bill;
From welfare to well-water testing, the health and human services package covers hundreds of services.

BYLINE: Jean Hopfensperger; Staff Writer

BODY:
The abortion waiting period in the health and human services bill isn't the only controversial provision in the giant spending package, which covers services for more than 600,000 Minnesotans.

    The House version of the bill, which both legislative chambers approved last week, would significantly reduce state family planning grants.   It would maintain current wages for workers at veterans homes, state hospitals and regional treatment centers, which prompted the state human services commissioner to predict hundreds of layoffs and reduced service.

     And the welfare provisions in the bill would mean that most welfare recipients reaching their five-year limits would be left, for the first time, without cash benefits.

     The debates over these provisions, as well as the less controversial elements of the $6.3 billion bill, have been overshadowed by the abortion amendment.

     "This is the bill that affects the largest number of Minnesotans directly," said Human Services Commissioner Michael O'Keefe. "We provide health insurance for a half-million Minnesotans. We administer child support services to 270,000 children, food stamps to about 200,000 individuals."

     Added State Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm: "We have a ton of health initiatives in the bill, but the only things visible to the public are the abortion issues."

     The spending bill covers hundreds of services for children, families and seniors.

       It would fund a new crackdown on overdue child support payments by creating a state system for seizing deadbeat parents' bank accounts. It would increase state mental health services and help for disabled people to move out of institutions and into communities.

     It would create a "racial disparities" project to close the gap between Caucasians and racial minorities in infant mortality rates, teen pregnancy rates and other health indicators.

     The bill covers everything from restaurant food inspections to well-water testing to state prisons.

      The largest portion of the bill is earmarked for changes in long-term care of seniors. The measure would give wage increases to nursing home workers, fee increases to rural hospitals and more money for community-based services for seniors.

      But it was family planning provisions of the bill that dominated much of the floor debate in the House, largely because they became entangled in abortion politics. The bill would cut family planning special projects grants by 70 percent, Malcolm said. It would prohibit teen pregnancy prevention grants from being used for anything except after-school enrichment programs and abstinence-until-marriage education programs.

      The bill also would prohibit the state from making contracts with family planning agencies that refer clients for abortions. All this, Malcolm said, "is a step backward" in preventing unwanted births.

     Wage questions

     Not discussed on the House or Senate floor, but on the minds of Malcolm and O'Keefe, are wages for health and human services workers. The bill doesn't include cost-of-living pay increases. Without money to pay for those raises, layoffs would be necessary, they said. For example, staff cuts would result in a reduction of about 125 regional treatment center beds, O'Keefe said.

     "About 450 to 500 people with significant mental health needs will be denied services," he said.

     During legislative debate, Republicans generally favored lower-budget approaches to solving health and human services problems, which they said was more "fiscally responsible." But DFLers argued that, with a budget surplus, the state could do more.

     The debate over Minnesota's welfare system exemplified differences in funding priorities and philosophy. Under the House bill, only parents with illness, disability or other significant barriers to work could get an extension of benefits beyond the five-year lifetime limit.

      In addition, families that didn't comply with their welfare plan for four months would lose all their cash benefits, instead of getting a reduction only. This would be the first time the state ended benefits for such parents.

     The Senate bill would let nearly all recipients stay on welfare longer than five years as long as they followed their work plan. It also would extend the amount of time parents on welfare could continue their education, from one to two years.

    The Senate version also calls for a major expansion of children's health insurance coverage.

     Meanwhile, the $330 million budget for Minnesota correction department also is in limbo. The budget is included in the Senate health and human service bill, but not in the House's version. By accepting the House bill, the Senate left its corrections budget without a home, at least for the time being.

      "The whole thing is quite bizarre," said Corrections Commissioner Sheryl Ramstad Hvass. "Right now we're in limbo."

    _ Jean Hopfensperger is at hopfen@startribune.com.



LOAD-DATE: May 15, 2001