This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.

Legislature Reverses MSP Cuts

Elderly and disabled residents across the state can now breath a little easier after legislators recently returned to Hartford to restore funding to the Medicare Savings Program (MSP). Had they been enacted, funding cuts outlined in the bipartisan budget passed in October would have kicked nearly 113,000 residents off the program this month with little to no notice. The move sparked heavy criticism and fast action; on Jan. 8 the legislature voted overwhelmingly in favor of restoring the $54 million needed to keep the program funded at prior levels until July 1.

The MSP is designed to help eligible residents cover Medicare Part B premiums and other Medicare out-of-pocket costs. Starting Jan. 1, 2018, the state was set to lower the eligibility thresholds to qualify for the plan in an effort to save close to $70 million. The previous annual income threshold for low-income seniors and the disabled to participate in the MSP was $25,447. The proposed new threshold for help was half that annual income, or $12,060 or less per year.

In Guilford, 334 residents were previously using the MSP. Many people enrolled in the program received a letter shortly after the budget passed informing them that they were no longer eligible under the new income guidelines; they and municipal social service agents quickly shared their concerns with the sstate legislators who’d recently enacted the change.

In response, the Department of Social Services (DSS) announced in December that the new income guidelines would not go into effect until March 1, 2018 rather than Jan. 1, essentially giving legislators time to find the money to the restore and fund the program under the previous income levels though the end of the fiscal year.

On Jan. 8, the House of Representatives voted 130-3 and the Senate voted 32-1 to restore funding to the program. State Representative Sean Scanlon (D-98) said he received hundreds of calls on this issue and was glad to see the legislature go back and fix this issue.

“The next question seniors are going to ask is, ‘Okay well are we going to be back here on July 1 with the same predicament?’ and my answer to that is, ‘No,’” he said. “I think there was so much public opposition to this and a realization from us in the legislature that this was a really bad cut that you won’t see this coming back in a proposal anytime soon.”

While Scanlon said he doesn’t expect a cut like this again, he and other legislators have acknowledged that to keep the program viable in future years, some structural adjustments, like an asset test, are being considered. Scanlon said an asset test might move some people on the higher end of the spectrum—those who are living off more than just social security checks—off the program, but would protect those residents who really need this program.

“The folks who called my office were the people who literally I would be on the phone with them and they would say, ‘Okay I get $1,500 a month and Social Security and I spend $200 on this and $300 on that,’” he said. “That kind of person who is on such a fixed income is the person we need to protect this program for.”

State Representative Vincent Candelora (R-86) said discussions are already ongoing to possibly build in an asset test after July 1. To keep the program funded until July 1, Candelora said leaders of both parties sat down in a room and identified three major areas—a budget surplus, teacher pension savings, and administrative dollars—to pull together the $54 million.

“We took taxes off the table because we didn’t want increase taxes,” he said. “…The bulk of it came from areas of money that [won’t] affect this current year budget.”

Governor Dannel P. Malloy has announced he’s considering vetoing the change because it worsens the $224 million projected budget deficit for the current fiscal year that the legislature has to go back and address in the coming months.

Both Candelora and Scanlon said the legislature would likely go back and override the governor’s veto should Malloy take that step. Candelora said part of the problem is the governor had come out prior to the MSP vote and called it unnecessary because he intended to delay implementation of the income adjustments until July 1. However, even if true, Candelora said the legislature wanted that delay in writing.

“Many of us—especially the Republicans—felt strongly that the governor doesn’t have the authority to ignore legislation, so if he implemented that delay, that was technically unconstitutional,” he said. “The law says it [the income adjustments passed in the state budget] shall be implemented Jan. 1, 2018… That’s why we wanted to get in and change the law because technically a governor doesn’t have the legal authority to ignore the will of the legislature. That’s why the vote occurred.”