Emails, Stacey Pogue, senior policy analyst, Center for Public Policy Priorities, July 29, Aug. 3 and Sept. 3, 2015
From: Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) [mailto:wgselby@statesman.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:58 AM
Subject: Fresh inquiry, fact check
We’re trying to check the statement in the video here: “The State of Texas is funding … women’s health services at historically high levels; they just increased their level another $50 million for the next two years.” I am aware that this May 2015 LBB document refers to a name change and more.
In the center’s analysis, is this claim accurate? Why or why not? Are there other experts you recommend we contact?
g.
W. Gardner Selby
Reporter / News
Austin American-Statesman
PolitiFact Texas
2:43 p.m.
July 29, 2015
https://www.hf-tx.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2016-2017-Womens-Health-Budget-Digest-1.pdf
Stacey Pogue
Senior Policy Analyst
Center for Public Policy Priorities
7020 Easy Wind Drive, Suite 200 ● Austin, TX 78752
512.823.2863 desk
www.cppp.org
A BETTER TEXAS is a place where all of us have access to quality, affordable health care.
Get Involved With Texas Well & Healthy
10:26 a.m.
Aug 3, 2015
I don’t have information that pre-dates 2010.
Here’s an LBB document with an overview of family planning funding, with some spending data back to 2010: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Publications/GEER/Government_Effectiveness_and_Efficiency_Report_2015.pdf#Family_Planning_Services
And here is our report after the 2013 session on family planning funding, which has spending back to 2010:
http://forabettertexas.org/images/HC_2013_08_PP_Budget_FamilyPlanning.pdf
The 2014-15 funds in this document won’t match the rest because we only used the portion of Expanded Primary Healthcare funding that was directed to family planning.
Stacey Pogue
Senior Policy Analyst
Center for Public Policy Priorities
5:55 p.m.
Sept. 2, 2015
I am back at you because of one more wrinkle to our check of Joe Pojman’s claim.
We wondered if, even with spending up, less money is available per beneficiary. By email, a state spokesman, Bryan Black, provided this chart, drawing on U.S. Census Bureau surveys, estimating the number of female U.S. citizens aged 15-44 living at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level in Texas from 2010 through 2017--in other words, most possible beneficiaries.
Next, we calculated that some $109 per potential beneficiary was spent in 2012-13; this was exceeded by the $205 per potential beneficiary appropriated by lawmakers for such programs in 2014-15 and the $236 per potential beneficiary appropriated for 2016-17. We got to these figures by dividing what the commission earlier told us was either expended or appropriated for the programs singled out by Pojman by the high-end population figure from each two-year period. This seem to make sense?
g.
W. Gardner Selby
Reporter / News
Austin American-Statesman
PolitiFact Texas
10:06 a.m.
Sept. 3, 2015
I wanted to point out one complication.
The lege dramatically cut family planning funding in 2011. They restored funding in 2013, but through a new program (DSHS Expanded Primary Health Care), which doesn’t just provide “women’s health services.” Only women are eligible for the program, but its services aren’t limited to family planning and breast/cervical cancer related services, the health services that are unique to women and what I think of when I hear the phrase. EPHC also covered primary care including treatment for high blood pressure or diabetes, as examples.
Our analysis from 2 years ago pulls out the EPHC funds that weren’t earmarked for family planning – 60% of the program funding and clients were supposed to be family planning. That is pretty easy to do for 2014-15, but it isn’t easy to do for 2016-17. During 2016-17, EPHC is going to be merged with the Women’s Health Program and the new combined program will have different benefits. It sounds like it will focus more on the traditional women’s health services and less on the primary care side, but we just don’t know yet.
If you wanted to try to reflect in your analysis that all of the funding for women’s health programs no longer just goes to traditional women’s health services, you’d have to talk with the commission or DSHS about how to separate appropriations to EPHC for 2014-15 and 2016-17. They certainly track what % of funding is used for family planning, because they are supposed to hit that 60% goal. Last time I heard them present on the topic, they were falling a bit behind.
Stacey Pogue
Senior Policy Analyst
Center for Public Policy Priorities
1:28 p.m.
Sept. 3, 2015
I got a chance to check in with Eva. Three additional thoughts to share.
1. Your methodology to create a per-potentially-eligible-woman cost seems just fine. But, the best way to use the numbers from HHSC is to look at the average annual growth rate in potentially eligible TX women: about 1.5% a year for the U.S.-citizens alone. (Annual growth rate is slightly lower when you add in the non-citizens – 1.1%) Any time funding grows faster than that, it’s at least keeping pace with the growing need (potentially eligible residents). The other factor is the cost of the services provided; presumably those grow at the cost of medical inflation. (Another couple percentage points a year.)
2. We recommend that you not describe it as a “per beneficiary cost.” That implies the programs are serving way more women than are actually reached (we are no where near serving most of the women in need). And the services differ in 2010 vs 2017, so the costs of those services would be different, too.
3. Make sure to include 2010-11 in your calculation for a per-potentially-eligible-woman cost. There will definitely be a trajectory upward if you use 2012-13 as the base year. That was the biennium when DSHS FP funds were slashed by two-thirds. If you want a good comparison that show funding trends over time, you’ll need at least 2010-11 in the mix.
Stacey Pogue
Senior Policy Analyst
Center for Public Policy Priorities
From: Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) [mailto:wgselby@statesman.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 1:33 PM
Subject: RE: Pojman, following up
What angle would you take from the available figures to get a fair comparison of recent changes?
1:42 p.m.
Sept. 3, 2015
The only way I can see approaching it is to not account for the changes that are still up in the air, while recognizing that they exist. Two options:
· Recognized 60% of the funding to DSHS EPHC for both 2014-15 and 2016-17. Today, I believe EPHC is still operating with a goal of using 60% of the funding for family planning. If you recognize 60% of the appropriations for 2014-15 and 2016-17, you’ll capture appropriators stated goals for how much funding should support family planning versus other health care needs. That mix will change when the programs are consolidated sometime in 2016-17, but we don’t’ know when that will happen yet, or whether non-FP services will be covered.
· Ask DSHS for the amount of EPHC funding from 2014-15 that went to FP versus other services. It should be near 60%, but it may not have gotten there. Apply that ratio to 2016-17 (or ask what they project for 2016-17).
Stacey Pogue
Senior Policy Analyst
Center for Public Policy Priorities