Emails, Joe Pojman, executive director, Texas Alliance for Life, Aug. 6 and Sept. 2, 2015
7:29 p.m.
Here is my quote from the Women Betrayed Rally on July 28, 2015:
I just want to emphasize the State of Texas is doing its part . . . The State of Texas is funding women's health services at historically high levels. They just increased that level another $50 million for the next two years. Planned Parenthood was out here doing rallies during the session asking for more money for women's health. But, you know what? They are not getting a dime of it.
You can view it here (1:30) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as-YpoQ7Lpk.
If you have any questions, please contact me at anytime joe@texasallianceforlife.org or 512.736.3708.
The attached spreadsheet includes a total of the funds for each of these for the last 10 biennia (1998-2017). It is clear that the funding in the current biennium ($284.6 million for the biennium) is greater now than for any of those years.
My quote refers to all funds, federal and state, and are total funds, not per capita, for four women’s health programs: Texas Women’s Health Program, Family Planning, Expanded Primary health Care, and Breast Cervical Cancer Screening. From the context of my statement in my speech, it should be clear that I am not including funding for perinatal care, including childbirth. Planned Parenthood provides virtually no services for pregnant women, certainly not support for childbirth, except elective abortion. The State of Texas spends vast funds for childbirth, paying for 54% of all childbirth with the Medicaid Program. I am including both state and federal funds (all funds) appropriated by the Texas Legislature. Many state funds can be used for any number of purposes (for example, federal Title XX Social Services Block Grant funds). The Legislature has dedicated many of these funds for women’s health services at the expense of other programs.
The best reference for a description of these programs is given in the Texas Health and Human Services Commission/Texas Department of State Health Services “Presentation to Senate Committee on health and Human Services: Texas Women’s Health and Family Planning Programs,” Texas Health and Human Services Commission & Texas Department of State Health services, February 20, 2014.
Page 11 of that document defines the four women’s health care programs that offer these services to low-income women.
These health programs generally include the following services:
- Birth control
- Pregnancy testing and health screening
- Planning for a healthy pregnancy
- STD testing
- Health education and counseling
- Pelvic exam and Pap tests
- Screening for breast and cervical cancers, diabetes, sexually-transmitted infections, and high blood pressure
The State of Texas offers to women’s health services to qualified low-income women through more than 4,000 providers other than Planned Parenthood. The State formerly used Planned Parenthood’s several dozen facilities as contractors but no longer does so for these programs. Planned Parenthood fails to meet the criteria for providers adopted by the Legislature in 2011 and later.
Planned Parenthood failed to meet qualifications to be a provider of these programs. There are several reasons:
- Women’s Health Program -- SB 7 (1st Called Session, 2011) excluded abortion providers and their affiliates from the Women’s Health Program. There are currently more than 4,000 providers in the WHP, none of which are affiliated with Planned Parenthood. Providers can be found at http://texaswomenshealth.org/
- DSHS Family Planning – Beginning in 2011, the Legislature passed SB 7 and DSHS Rider 77 in the HB 1, the General Appropriations Act, that prioritizes family planning funding to public community health centers (federal, state, or local), Federally Qualified Health Centers, and organizations that provide comprehensive primary and preventative care in addition to family planning services. Planned Parenthood does not meet that standard of care and was not awarded any grants. SB 7 passed in the First Called Special Session has similar language.
- Expanded Primary Health Care – This program was created in 2013 with a $100 special fund. Since Planned Parenthood does not offer comprehensive primary care, they have been ineligible to be a provider. Also, DSHS Rider 82 (2013) and DSHS Rider 74 (2015) only allows providers who are eligible for the Texas Women’s Health Program.
- BCCS – In 2015, the Legislature passed HB 1 with DSHS Rider 72, which only allows providers who are eligible for the Texas Women’s Health Program.
References:
- “Presentation to Senate Committee on health and Human Services: Texas women’s Health Family Planning Programs,” Texas Health and Human Services Committee & Texas Department of State Health Services, February 20, 2014.
Joe
--
Joe Pojman, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Texas Alliance for Life
On 8/26/2015 4:07 PM, Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) wrote:
Joe:
I’m following up here with a few questions:
Can you guide me to rider 78 in the budget? I am seeing possibly relevant language but it appears to be in section 76 of the article.
Also, I am attaching an analysis provided in response to my inquiry about your statement. It came by email from the Health and Human Services Commission. Thoughts?
Were you saying earlier that women’s health spending per person may be going down—that it isn’t setting a record in that way? What is the best data on that?
Thanks.
g.
10:47 a.m.
Sept. 2, 2015
I believe the numbers I gave you in my spreadsheet "Women's Health Services Funding Summary" (which I attached again) are consistent with the spreadsheet you sent to me from the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC). Both sets of numbers back up my statement that "The State of Texas is funding women's health services at historically high levels."
To answer your specific questions:
- I referenced "Rider 78" in my spreadsheet (in J13, "For WHP, FP, Expanded PHC, Rider 78, and BCCS see Special Provisions, Sec. 50 (II-132)"). I got that reference to "Rider 78" directly from the Special Provision Sec. 50. You may be correct that is should read "Rider 76." It may merely be a typo in HB 1. (Quite possible to have a typo in a nearly 1000-page bill.) I guess you would have to check with someone at HHSC to verify that.
- My statement is referring to total funds appropriated, not total funds per capita. I do not have the per capita spending data. The Appropriations Acts (HB 1/SB 1) for any of the years always lists total funds, not funds per capita, as far as I am aware. This would be the most obvious interpretation of my statement -- total (gross) funds, not total funds per capita -- and that is certainly what I intended my statement to mean.
- Also, my statement is referring to total funds appropriated, not funds expended. Here's why:
- Appropriated funds is what is publicly available through all of the 20 years that I included.
- During and after each session, I and a lot of other people keep close track of what the Legislature appropriates.
- For the FY 2016-17, the expenditures began on September 1, 2015, i.e., the funds did not even begin flowing until September 1, long after the time I made my statement.
- Regardless, whether you count total funds appropriated or total funds expended, the result is the same: "The State of Texas is funding women's health services at historically high levels."
Comparison of my table to the HHS table:
- The numbers in my table track very closely with the numbers in the HHS table. Both sets of numbers back up with my statement. Here is a summary of the total funds (in millions):
Biennium My Table HHS Table
(Column I) (All funds row)
2010-11 $201.4 $199.0
2012-13 $128.8 $136.7
2014-15 $240.1 $240.3
2016-17 $284.6 $288.6
- My table lists each biennium vertically. The HHSC table lists each biennium horizontally.
- My table includes 10 bienniums (20 years). The HHS spreadsheet includes four bienniums (8 years).
- Both my table and the HHSC table include federal and state funds.
- The HHSC table includes the four programs I included in my table, plus one other program -- Title V Prenatal Medical/Dental. I did not include this program because I do not believe it includes contraceptives as a benefit, which seems to normally included in just about any discussion of women's health services. Also, the Title V Prenatal Medical/Dental program is not included on p. 11 of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission "Presentation to Senate Committee on Health and Human Services: Texas Women's Health and Family Planning Programs," which attached to a previous email. Regardless, the funds for this program is relatively small compared to the other four programs, and the result is the same that the 206-2017 Women's Health appropriations is greater than ever before.