We’ll call the meeting to order. If members could find their way to their seats we’ll get started and we’ll begin by first recognizing our Sergeant of Arms. We have Reggie Seals, Bob Rossi, Mike Clampet, Bill Morris, Warren Hawkins, and B.H. Powell here with us and thank you and they’ll be serving us and helping us out here today. And we will ask that this room it is smaller, it is very packed any conversations that you may have if you will please take those outside so that members can hear the conversation that is going on. This is of course is House Conference Committee on Senate Bill 744 we are going to update the major items in controversy and we will call forward Chairman Dollar, if he will come forward and we will turn it over to you to make the presentation. Chairman Dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Chairman Holloway. Appreciate it very much. And what we’ll do is we’ll go briefly through several slides and then we will open it up for discussion or comments or questions from the members. Everyone was, I’m sure the chairman might have noted it, everyone was certainly invited to be here today and we appreciate everyone who has chose to attend. First slide is just looking at what this is is a comparison of the major items in controversy with the two most recent offers that were put forward between the House and the Senate late last week. And the three major issues that are still very much outstanding at this point is the teacher pay plan which you may be aware the Senate is still at 11%, the House has moved up to 6% in our offer last week. With the respect to education, the major issue between us beyond teacher pay is the House’s proposal retains the existing teacher assistance that allotment and what that allotment means and we’ll get into those details in a couple more slides. The Senate does not, it takes all of those teaching positions out. And in health and human services, the major difference there is with regard with eligibility with aged, blind, and disabled moving forward, making those individuals no longer eligible for principally long term care of services but a range of Medicaid services. I would hasten to note that although these are major areas of controversy, one thing that happened last week that I think was maybe unreported or was certainly underreported is the fact that our joint subcommittees, now not health and human services and not education, but the others justice and public safety, general government, transportation, economic, natural resources, and IT did meet last week. Those joint subcommittee’s chairs made significant progress in every one of those areas and resolved the lion’s share of the issues, obviously did not necessarily resolve all of the issues in any particular area but actually made great progress jointly. In terms of the teacher pay plan, this is just showing you some specifics here. The House has moved, if you look over to the left that was the budget as it left the House. Up until offer number four we were still at 5%. For the most recent offer at the end of the week, we did move up as you see from 178 million to $219,000,000 which we pulled from a variety of areas to move to an average raise of 6%. A lot of folks have talked about rankings and wanting to move up in the rankings with regard to North Carolina and teacher salaries. With a 6% increase, North Carolina would move up to number 3 among those 6 southeast states. Just as someone noted to today, just $3 less than…
Virginia number, in the number two spot with that increase of 6%. Average 6%. In terms of national teacher rankings, North Carolina, with a 6% increase, again, would move up substantially on a national basis up from 46 to 31st. Again, practically tied with Virginia at 30th at that level of increase. That move would be done within one year which is a very substantial move in progress toward getting to where all of us want to be. In terms of the Senate’s pay plan, they have not moved from the time that they enacted their version of Senate Bill 744 through their various offers to their most recent offer, they have remained at 11% and have not moved. Looking at other adjustments, if you look at the House side, the House has moved from $114.6 million and other adjustments in education to $156.8 million. That includes putting on the table $19.8 million in expansion in teacher assistance. In other words, of the amount in the teacher - of that $233 million in teacher assistance, $19.8 million of that was actually expansion over and above what is currently in the classroom. The House offer took those funds and put them toward the cost of greater increase and moved up in several other areas, in terms of our reductions to attempt to accommodate the Senate position. With respect to the Senate, they had not moved either in their other adjustments. The largest one being the...and that’s the total cut that was proposed, $233 million in teaching assistance, and that $233 million is part of the $407 million. Again, making comparison, the House is at $156 million in adjustments and education which includes the $19.8 million and the Senate is at $407 million including $233 million in reductions of the teaching assistant line item. In Health and Human Services, the House has moved rather substantially with an increase of $52 and a half million from the original budget document passed in the House where the House was $67.7 million in reductions. The House offer, too, had moved to $96 million, and the most recent House offer is basically cleared the decks for all practical purposes at $120 million in reductions in Health and Human Services to try to accommodate an agreement on the budget. The Senate has kind of gone in the opposite direction. The Senate had stayed at $228 million in cuts to Health and Human Services and actually increased their cut in their last offer to $255 million, so they actually increased their cut. The concern that the House has with respect to the major reduction in Health and Human Services, as you know, was some $73 million that was discussed last week that were unachievable reductions. The Senate replaced those with a change in the estimation of the reduction in one of the eligibility categories. Originally was an eligibility section in Medicaid that estimated at $3.5 million reduction. The Senate now estimates that that reduction is actually...
$105,000,000 state money. That reduction, we’ll talk about how much that means on an annual basis, but in terms of lives impacted on an annual basis that would impact, that reduction, that eligibility change, would impact over sixteen thousand age, blind, and disabled individuals that are currently in long term care facilities. So these are your most medically needy individuals in the system. It would also impact, twenty one, over 21,445 individuals. These are principally personal care services that are receiving services, long term care services within their homes and thus principally in their homes, although there are some in the pace program and a couple of other categories that are currently with those services able to stay out of a facility and able to stay in their home, which is certainly a lower expense when they are in their home as opposed to being in a long term care facility. This chart, it’s a little hard to read unless you are right on top of it, but the net of this it shows categories including where the bulk of the individuals are, which are in long term care and private living arrangements, but also includes a number of people in the pace program, which the state had been attempting to grow recently. If you look at the dollars and the dollars that you see to the left in the chart are funds representing costs of services provided through April. On an annualized basis, if you look over to the right, on an annualized basis this represents $211,000,000 in services cost to the state, so that’s actually $633,000,000 worth of services on an annual basis would no longer be provided through Medicaid with the Senate’s proposal impacting right at 38,000 recipients. In terms of what would happen with those individuals, a number of those individuals would obviously fall to the state, to the DSSs, Department of Social Services, at the state level, at the county level rather and the counties would have to come up with some portion of what’s currently being provided, some portion of the $633,000,000, I’m not exactly sure how much, but it could be a substantial portion. Also, it would point out, of that $633,000,000, two-thirds of that is currently being paid for by the federal government. Those federal funds would obviously go away in order to achieve the state’s savings if this were to be done. The other question is whether or not the federal government would actually approve, if the federal government did not approve of a state plan amendment to affect this change then the budget would have a $105,000,000 hole in it, if the federal government did not approve the change that is recommended. And actually the two eligibility changes together would be $120,000,000. Again, a comparison between the two offers the House has moved up to $120,000,000 in reductions in health and human services and not impacting Medicaid eligibility. The Senate is at $255,000,000 in cuts to health and human services. Looking at doing a little bit of comparisons with the reduction’s net, difference if you look at teaching assistants at this backs out the $19,000,000 that the House has offered. The difference between the House number and the Senate number on health and human services, which is currently $135,000,000 and if you add in the balance that out with the reserve, the House reserve as was provided in the Senate offer which was $171,000,000 you still have a difference at this point of
$77 million between the two offers last week. Now that is actually more than that if you look at the current difference between salary of the House and Senate position on state employees, that's another $100 million in difference, that takes you up to around $278 million, and there are other differences on the range of around $55 million in some other areas that are still to be negotiated between the sides. The outcome just looking at a review of the outcome of Senate offer 6, their latest offer, the estimation would be that you would lose 6200 educator positions, the actual dollar amount is probably over 7000 but just in terms of how these funds are spent, the better estimate is around 6200 educator positions cut, 1200 plus teachers, actual teaching positions that are paid for through that TA allotment, and then 5000 plus teacher assistants in the second and third grade that are currently being used for those purposes. And in the Health and Human Services areas, 36,000, I think the actual number's closer to 38, but for this purpose, 36,000 aged, blind and disabled adults losing support, 13,000 potentially removed from adult care facilities or nursing homes, shifting the burden to families if those individuals have families. And 17,000 losing access to home and community based services, and again these are also disabled adults, some of these individuals are dual eligible, I think the question has been raised, "Could some of these individuals go on the exchange and access insurance that way?" Of course, one of your challenges there is those policies do not cover long term care services. And probably the bulk of these individuals are dually eligible, so they are receiving their long term care services through medicaid which they would lose. And would impact a lot of small businesses and other businesses that would provide care for these individuals in adult care homes currently, or provide care for these individuals in their home to try to keep them out of facilities. Those are the major differences between the sides as we see it, as the House sees it, as it stands today and in terms of, well at the direction of the Chairs, I would be happy to answer any questions or provide any clarification on this material. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there any questions or comments for the members? Rep. Shepard? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Rep. Dollar, how does the cuts to TAs apply to TAs that are in our high schools, that are in-school suspension officers and school bus drivers and so and so forth, would that apply to them at all, or would they be exempted from this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chairman Dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think I would actually pass that to Chairman Johnson to maybe give you a little better answer on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The funding comes and is used wherever the system sees, so if the cuts were made they would also be made there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions? Rep. Avila. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With regards to the DHHS side of things, what would you put the percentage success of getting an okay on any of this type of cut through CMS? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would think, and I would not hold myself to be any sort of expert with Senators from Medicaid and Medicare with the Federal government, but I would observe two things: One, CMS only considers a change in eligibility if there is already a plan in place for addressing the needs of those individuals for which you're going to change the eligibility. So there would have to be a
a plan for what happens to those people and how people are going to actually access those services, and you're trying to figure out how people are going to access some $600 million worth of services, I would think that would be very problematic. The other area is, if you look at the more recent setllements between the federal government and the state of North Carolina, they've been very keen on saying that you have to treat everybody comparable. You can't grandfather some people and have something new for new people coming into the same class. That would be very problematic as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker Tillis, was that pencil up in the air, was that your saying you want to speak? Speaker Tillis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Rep. Dollar, the only question I have at this point relates back to the slide titled "Health and Human Services - House Position". And I know that you mentioned the House movement from 67 to 96 to 120. Would it be fair to- part of the purpose of your presentation is just talk about movement of both chambers. Would it be fair to characterize the Senate as having moved down from a higher number, I mean I know that we're moving up, but on that particular slide, I think that probably the only thing I haven't seen in here- I think it's very balanced and very fair presentation, is acknowledgment that there is a higher number that they have acquiesced to and agreed on this midpoint, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What I think you may be thinking about is the movement from maybe two weeks ago, when the House moved up about $129 million to reach a midpoint on the backlog number, amount of money held for backlog, and an amount of money with regard to risk reserve for potential medicaid needs should they be needed in the upcoming year. In terms of reductions, the Senate went away in their last offer by $27.5 million. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Folks, I have on deck, just to see if I've missed anyone. I have Hager, Lambeth, and Hurley. Is there anyone else, someone I missed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Faircloth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any others? [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Brisson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. Faircloth and Brisson. Rep. Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chairman Dollar, I think we all applaud the Senate for their efforts to get to that 50% of quartile for teachers and teacher pay, but worries me a little bit is the 11% versus the 6% of what that means to the counties. Do you have the data to elaborate on that, any at all? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't have the data and I think I might let Chairman Johnson answer that, but yes, the higher you go with the raise, there are things at the county level that are tied to that and Chairman Johnson can probably better explain. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Hager, thank you for asking that. The county budgets have already or most of them have already been worked on and finished. The county also puts teachers in the classroom so that they figured in their budget that that teacher, at what they thought would be the estimated raise of at most 5 to 6%, so should it go to 11, somewhere in their budget for every teacher that they pay for, they would have to find 5% of that salary and the benefits. So in some cases, especially in your larger counties, I can't remember exactly what Superintendant Morrison said, but I believe it was $11 million that Mecklinburg would have to find, so it could be a substantial amount of money. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Lambeth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Rep. Dollar, my question relates to the HHS, and the cuts to eligibility. I think we've all received a lot of emails from families who are very concerned about their loved ones who would lose that eligibility and who would be back in with their family. And that they're not really prepared to handle those. What we used to refer to these patients in the industry is "Medically fragile", they have lots of different conditions and the reason they're in these sites is because of their medical
[0:00:00.0] …fragile conditions and families really aren’t prepared. There are lots of consequences when you remove these from those settings where they are able to be cared for to a family for example ___[00:17] taking care of love one, they are gonna wanna do that but there are gonna be, there will be consequences, when they are in a family setting they are also gonna be going to the ER more frequently, have we done anything to look at what the ripple effect would be of moving these patients 36,000 or so out and what potential cost we may incur at any level, state local level because they are gonna go get access at some point because they are medically fragile and they are gonna need care that maybe there will be in the ED, that maybe other ____[00:53] of care and I just wondered if we really save anything by cutting eligibility for this category when in fact we haven’t look at the other side of the equation which is what is gonna cost of care for these an alternative not as good as setting quite frankly and I know there are as many things along those lines or not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I haven’t seen any research on that but I think that questions which you raise, the questions that the Representative Avila raise are just scratching the surface what the implications might potentially be, who is gonna bear the cost, where those cost gonna be born, the impact on the system obviously, the impact on the families and the impact on the care that as you said medically fragile people are receiving, a lot of questions that we need to be answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, Representative Dollar I had called our city schools…Not Superintendent but it’s the Finance Officer after last week’s meeting and Representative Hagar and Representative Johnson touched on it and they are figuring, didn’t figure about 5% and they said that they would have to come back to the County Commissioners ___[02:11] and he said other school systems are different like I think Davidson County I go to their city people so it would be different for all of us. So, that would mean a delay off course in their budget which is already here and so I’m hoping that we can come to our conclusions soon so that we can get this or they can hire people, they are not mean able to hire people because of our not being able to come to terms here, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ____[02:43] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, the question for Chairman Dollar, I’m on the page that can tell you the comparative original salary ranking and we have the figure 48,700 for North Carolina in third place there in our region and that’s 48,700 state dollars, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, that is state dollars and doesn’t include the local supplements and I know that Chairman Johnson would probably wanna expand on the answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, that is state dollars and the regional reference is really most our of teachers across the border, our school systems along the border have a lot of trouble at keeping teachers so it’s very important that this be our regional salaries are comparable. You have heard numerous numbers, you have heard 46, 13, 11 actually these rankings as far as who at the state pays we are I believe 10th now in the nation for what they state pays for teachers, it’s just that we have a different system of paying our teachers, most school systems in other states know that there will be a percentage of money coming from but they call a taxing authority in other words the schools are separated from the County Commissioners and there is a different way of spending the money. We knew at the local and the states are ranking drops to 46. So, you hear a lot of rankings but the important ranking is your regional because that’s where you loose most of your teachers where it’s easy access I can just drive across the line and make thousands more. So, this is a very important increase… [0:04:59.8] [End of file...]
Speaker: Any follow up for Chairman Jones? Representative: Yes, real quick Representative Fairclothe, I think Chairman Dollard did want to put some information out there about your question, as far as ranking goes and how state dollars affect that. Representative: I wanted to correct something that I had said in initially responding. This amount does include, I believe, all the local supplements in averaging the figure, and, what I would like to do is call on a staff individual, Ms. Laneer, I always get your name wrong – Linear? Speaker: Representative Fairclothe, we will come back to you – I will let you follow up, but Linear, if you could. Linear: Linear with school research. The average salary is calculated by figuring out the average dollar increase per teacher and adding it to the current average salary, or as provided in the NA rankings. So it is an estimate of what the potential average salary could be. We do not know. It all depends on the mix of teachers, i.e. where they fall in the schedule, what lanes and steps they are on. Representative: I apologize Representative Fairclothe, I did not realize they calculated it that way. Speaker: Did you have a follow up Representative Fairclothe? Representative: Yes if I might. Speaker: Yes sir. Representative: I just wanted to be sure that the numbers we are comparing here regionally are using the same method of calculation so even though they may differ are all, for instance, GA, NC, VA all on the same calculation? Speaker: I think you can call on staff for that. Linear, if you could please? Linear: The average salaries are from a National Education Survey that they do. I believe it is based on how they report. Chris Nordstrom might be able to provide additional information on NA’s methodology for their salaries. Speaker: Chris, I think you have been summoned so… Chris: Alright. Chris Nordstrom, physical research. I don’t know if I am going to be able to live up to the task. I was just going to add that is based on survey data so we have no way to know, necessarily, whether or not the way other states answer the question is the same as the way NC answers its question. It does include state and local funds. In certain cases, the states, the data, are estimates rather than responses from the state education department. So there is some question as to where exactly the dollar figures fall, but the NC data generally matches up with other data we have from other payroll sources in the state. Speaker: Chairman Johnson, I think you said you wanted to make a comment. Chairman: I do. I wanted to explain a little bit about the salaries because we pay one base rate for a teacher. When you get to the regular school system itself, they may pay more or less. So, some of the teachers that we have that leave, just go across to a larger system to make a larger paycheck. We have found that why these salaries are so important is that we have found in the university system, we are not having as many students commit to being teachers – that is where we really need to increase the salary and need to get to a regional base, so that they will know that there is a commitment out there to education in NC. Speaker: Speaker Tillis then we will come back to Representative Briss – I haven’t forgot you. Speaker Tillis? Representative: I will yield to the order Mr. Chair. Speaker: Are you sure? Okay, Representative Briss. Representative: Thank you Mr. Chair. The question is for Representative Dollard: there is a sheet showing, analyzing, scenic cuts impact on health and human services. Could you just touch a little bit on how it has affected us on trying to negotiate house 5 where we had to do additional cutting – trying to come together - how it affected health and human services. Representative: Well what you see there is of course an aggregate figure that once when joint chairs for health and human services were together will be able to flesh out….
of the particular reductions, but if you look at the budget, if you look at the original $67 million in reductions that the Senate had and the House adopted, and now the additional reductions up to $120 million, that includes most of them, except for a handful. So certainly a wide range of areas would be impacted by those reductions. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes sir, a follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]So basically what we're saying, and of course I've been on Health and Human Services for 8 years, and I know that certainly in the past, our figures have always been where it fluctuate and it can flip flop, show services short on one, then the secretary can move the money around. So this is not a direct cut from any line item particular, is it? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Well, sort of yes and no. It's not a particular line item, although it more or less is in the sense that if you go back and look at a particular line items, you look at assessments, you look at some things that were identified in earlier offers as specific areas that the House was willing to accept those reductions. It sweeps up the lion's share of them except for a couple of items, and doesn't necessarily tough rate yet, obviously eligibility is the piece that has everyone most concerned. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Speaker Tillis and then we'll have Representative Rappel. Speaker Tillis. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Chair. First, Representative Dollar, I appreciate you bringing up the fact that there has been progress made on the budget negotiations, and I just want to emphasis and offer my thanks to the subcommittee chairs, and justice and public safety, natural and economic resources, transportation, IT, and general government, for really bridging the gaps. We've got some good work there that hopefully we'll leverage by coming to a budget agreement. The question I have, and it's mainly for the education of those in the room who may not know the answer, and it may be appropriately directed to staff, has to do with how we arrive at 6%, the current proposal that includes 6%, because a lot of that is biased towards fulfilling our promise for starting teacher salary. Can staff provide us with some idea of what that average pay increase would be for those who are outside of that starting teacher salary. What we're trying to make to get regional, our regional competitiveness up, pursuant to the promise we made back in February, but then what the average is for veteran teachers beyond that base that would get the starting teacher's salary increment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]We'll call in staff, I don't know if we need Verner and Chris, or whoever wants to jump at it, go. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Chairman, Lynnie Armacrete, physical research. I don't have that information available, but the 6% is the change in salary and the staff increase for most teachers that they would receive. So the teachers at the top end, the beginning part of the schedule, sub-zero to 5, get about a 7.1% increase, and then I can provide information to the committee with the increase by step after that point. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Just to follow up Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes, follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Do you have some sense of as a percentage of the total teacher population, how many fit in to that base? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I think she's calculating. [SPEAKER CHANGES]There are about 92,400 teachers in our 6 period payroll database, and sub-zero to 5 account for 17,700 teachers, approximately. Representative Havely. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Chairman. This question may be directed to staff as well, but I'm curious, we've got to talking about the calculations among the states, and it seems I've heard in different education committees and things, that North Carolina's one of a few states that deals primarily with the state funding as much of the education costs as we do. Is that in the true case, because I know like in some of the states I'm familiar with
like New Jersey. They're almost like neighborhood schools, they're property tax driven, more so than state funding. So how do we fall in terms of the methodology we use, the combination of the state being so great then with the add in of the local as well as the small federal addition. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, i mean [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris may want to answer that, but that does get back to what Chairman Johnson said earlier that North Carolina is I think at least 13th in the country in its actual support of education from the state level, and some of these other states do have methodologies where they have local school taxes and other things that North Carolina doesn't do, but [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris, we'll call on you to elaborate a little if you will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris Nordstrom, Fiscal research division. Rep. Avila you're correct that North Carolina does have a larger state share of spending on public schools compared to other states. As far as how that fits into our calculations of 6%, I think it's linear. I tried to explain earlier the change in percentage is based on all teachers who are teaching this year returning and moving up a step, and then the state dollars associated with that, and no changes related to local supplements. There are a lot of assumptions going on in there to get that 6%, but that's the short answer on how we get there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. I've got 2 more on the docket here, I've got Rep. Lewis, and then Rep. Lambeth, and then we'll go to Rep. Dollar if he has any closing comments. Rep. Lewis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chairman Dollar, would you remind me what is the current House position on raises for the other state employees and has that changed from our initial proposal? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That has not changed from the initial House proposal. The House is proposing $1000 plus benefits for most state employees, we've got a couple other areas in there, some very small dollar amounts to try to fix the problems within some of the pay schedules and the House does have that same raise for the EPA or the professors in the university system as well. So if you're looking at sort of an aggregate difference between the House and the Senate, there's a difference there of about $101 million on salaries for state employees, vis a vis, the Senate's position. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Rep. Lewis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the breakdown of the aggregate number they used Mr. Chairman, per employee that's about $150-200, is that right? The fee [SPEAKER CHANGES] It'll be $1000 annually, so 12 into 1000 is about- [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to refresh my mind on this thing. The House proposal was about $1000 raise per employee, plus the benefit package that is different from the Senate proposal. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. The Senate's proposal is $809, plus benefits. The House's position is $1000 plus benefits. I guess if you're adding benefits and salary together, the House position is roughly $100 of salary and benefit a month for state employees, and that's- as both chambers do it and as the governor did it, obviously that's a larger percentage raise when you move down the salary scale, a larger percentage for the bulk of the state employees who are down on the lower end of the pay scale and obviously a lesser percentage for those at the higher ends of the pay scale. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, Rep. Lambeth and then we'll have Rep. Torbett. Rep. Johnson, were you wanting to speak? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd just like to make a comment. Rep. Lewis, I think you were trying to explain the difference between $1000 and giving $1000 to each employee or the
09 in the house budget, when we give the thousand dollars, that is one thousand two hundred and thirty nine dollars, that it cost the state. Is that what you were trying to get too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes ma’am [SPEAKER CHANGES] representative Lambeth [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you mister chairman. I wanna follow representative Avila question to the staff. If education is 13th. How does Medicaid compare when you look at state support to Medicaid, in a similar comparison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] and staff if some one could help us or let us know that you might have to get back with us. Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes mister chair. Susan Jacobs Cisco research. representative Lambeth, the percentage that the states is match is called FMAP varies depending on the economy of the state or various factors. So it depends state by state how much the Feds match, and how much north Carolina matches. We can actually get a chart for you that talks about it in the region how much our state match compared to other state match. I think that would be the best comparison versus total spending on Medicaid [SPEAKER CHANGES] follow up [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes sir follow up [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was just thinking. That if education of the total state budged was 13 percent, compared to others states, what is our percentage of Medicaid with in the state budged compared to what other states spend on Medicaid, within their percentage of the state budged. That’s slightly different question than the match but [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes ma’am [SPEAKER CHANGES] we do not have that information, but we can try to get it for you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] representative Torbett then we will recognise chairman Dollar for closing comments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thanks so much mister chairman. First and foremost thank you all for your hard work, and due diligences process. I know its been, its quite eyes opening. My question comes to, the Medicaid question, I thing we all understand that’s not an answer today that its gonna be consistent look evaluation, and a long term reformation event do better, but I keep looking for the rational in the spread of the numbers the differential. So I go to an equation, and I think what’s the next factor, is X factor our colleagues in the senate have is that perhaps an over concern, or at least a deep concern about the accuracy and projections, or is the X factor a hope, or y’all use your wisdom on this, is it a hope that some of this individuals will kick off into the ACA #obamacare system. what’s the, what’s that X factor. What do you see the X factor as reaching outcome in this equation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well of course the house's work to address the concern about any potential additional overage or short fall coming in to the, to this new budget year about moving on the amount in the risk reserve, which is above what we really believe is necessary. There were and every one's acknowledges this challenges, this year in being able to have a, what you would normally have in terms of a forecast, you don't really have a forecast so much this year, as estimates in ranges which hopefully that would be the, this will be the only year we have to deal with it, deal with that particular issue. With regard to moving on to the federal exchanges, for a number of this individuals, the long term services are not provided on the exchange, so they would obviously not be able to purchase those at any price. For others you know, families, disable, and a like. even if you were able to purchase a policy for this medically fragile people with there level of expenses, we are talking at the most experience people in the system for health care, obviously they would max out rather quickly, what ever there allowable coverages were. Than the question would be, who's gonna pick up that tab, would that have to be hospitals, health care providers, or counties, or how would that actually be afforded. When you make a move to shift over 630 million dollars worth of services currently being provided, the question where is that how you gonna count for that expense.
just one of many serious questions you have to consider. Nelson Dollar- I'm sorry, Rep. Dollar, do you have any ?? and comments? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well Mr. Chairman, I- [SPEAKER CHANGES] I didn't mean to call you by your first name. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, that's okay. I've been called worse. And recently. But anyway, Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank all of the members who are here today at this session, I certainly want to thank all of the conferees with all of the hard work that they've been done, as was mentioned previously, a number of these conferees have actually done quite a bit of hard work and made quite a bit of progress in a range of areas. Certainly the House feels very strongly with respect to maintaining that line for teaching assistance, we feel very strongly with respect to having gone as far as we think funds are available to go for our reductions for Health and Human Services, we're obviously very concerned about elegibility and what the impacts could be there if that policy were to be adopted. And of course the House feels very strongly about trying to maintain our position with regard to state employee pay raises who have been a while without a substantial pay raise as well. So those are major issues that we look forward to continuing to work with our Senate colleagues to acheive an acceptable set of budget adjustments in this year if at all possible, and if not possible, obviously we have a budget in place that we could move forward with, but we're hoping to do a little bit better than that. Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This meeting is adjourned.