New obstacles for Iowa families

Millions for work support oversight that would likely result in no savings

Senate File 334 could take food off the table and restrict health care access for some Iowans, while taking money away from much needed programs. The bill would spend $25 million per year after an initial $16 million in FY2020 to hire more than 520 state employees to verify eligibility for Iowans on work support programs such as Medicaid and SNAP (food assistance).[1] This legislation is brought to you by a Koch-funded lobbying group out of Florida.

Iowa’s Legislative Service Agency analysis indicates that the bill’s proposed “quarterly reviews have the potential to reduce public assistance enrollment, but no significant savings are expected because many items that would be reviewed quarterly are currently checked on a frequent basis.”[2]

SNAP helped more than 330,000 Iowans in January of 2019.[3] More than 560,000 Iowans are covered by Medicaid.[4] Many Iowans receiving help from these work support programs are children; many more are elderly persons in nursing homes.

Make no mistake — this bill has the sole intention of getting Iowans off of work support programs.

One in six Iowans living in working households is unable to afford basic needs such as groceries and health care on income alone.[5] Low wages are the problem and spending millions in taxpayer money to duplicate work support verification will do little to help Iowans get ahead.

SNAP is important for child development, educational outcomes and lifetime earnings.[6] Half of Medicaid enrollees in Iowa are children,[7] and 44 percent of Medicaid spending goes to services for older Iowans.[8] The challenge to Iowa policy makers is how to make sure people who need these supports can get them, not to put new obstacles in their way.

Policies that would really help Iowans get ahead should concentrate on raising wages to account for rising worker productivity. Helpful policies should reinstate workers’ rights and protections. Other policy solutions include expanding Iowa’s Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Care Assistance. It is to these solutions where Iowans need to turn their attention.

 

[1] Jess Benson, “Fiscal Note: SF 334 – Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Eligibility Verification.” February 2019. Iowa Legislative Services Agency. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/FN/1038439.pdf

[2] Ibid.

[3] Iowa Department of Human Services, “Food Assistance Report Series F-1.” January 2019. http://publications.iowa.gov/29783/1/FA-F1-2016%202019-01.pdf

[4] American Community Survey, “Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by State and Age for All People: 2017. September 2018. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/health-insurance/acs-hi.html

[5] Peter Fisher and Natalie Veldhouse, “The Cost of Living in Iowa – 2018 Edition: Many Iowa Households Struggle to Meet Basic Needs.” July 2018. Iowa Policy Project. http://iowapolicyproject.org/2018docs/180702-COL2018-Part2.pdf

[6] Feeding America, “Child Food Insecurity: The Economic Impact on our Nation.” 2009. https://www.nokidhungry.org/sites/default/files/child-economy-study.pdf

[7] American Community Survey, “Health Insurance Coverage Status and type of Coverage by State and Age for All People: 2017.” Table H105. September 2018. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-hi.html

[8] Steve Eiken, Kate Sredl, Brian Burwell & Angie Amos, “Medicaid Expenditures for Long-Term Services and Supports in FY 2016.” Table 31. Iowa LTSS Percentage Trends. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/ltss/downloads/reports-and-evaluations/ltssexpenditures2016.pdf

2018-NV-6w_3497(1)

 

Natalie Veldhouse is a research associate for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. nveldhouse@iowapolicyproject.org

Monopolies strangling solar, small business

Monopolies would destroy small business who make their money at the local level by insulating homes or installing solar panels.

In times like these, it is helpful to recall what our nation learned from the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt, who went after trusts and monopolies because he knew they used their huge size to strangle other businesses.

Iowa could use that kind of leadership. Our Iowa monopoly electric companies are strangling small businesses again. As monopolies they are guaranteed profits, only because of efficiencies seen as a public benefit in the production and distribution of power. And to make sure they do not abuse that power, they are regulated by a fairly powerful state regulatory agency, the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB).

Solar energy gives citizens control over part of their lives. Small customers who could not operate a coal plant can put up solar panels. MidAmerican Energy (MidAm) sees that and feels threatened. Even though only 750 of their 770,000 customers have solar panels on their property, MidAm wants this market to itself.

So now, MidAm is trying to bypass its IUB regulators by going to the Iowa Legislature to get what they want. MidAm’s approach is a job-killer for solar contractors and a few manufacturers in the state. Legislation the company is pushing would strip those small competitors of most of their market, reducing or even removing the benefits to people who chose to install solar panels.

In short, MidAm wants to put a tax on the sun.

Its proposed changes greatly reduce the incentive to generate one’s own electricity. As it works now, customers with solar panels sometimes produce more electricity than they use. This is often during the middle of a sunny day in the summer when electric prices are at their highest.

Currently, these customers are compensated for the excess energy they provide back to the grid at the same price they pay the electric monopoly. HSB185 would allow MidAm or any investor-owned utility to charge extra fees, or cut compensation, to homeowners and businesses that have clean energy systems. This would discourage solar projects by making them cost-prohibitive.

MidAm — like all utilities — charges a fixed, mandatory fee each month to all customers, which proves false MidAm’s principal argument that the clean-energy customers aren’t paying their share for lines, transformers and billing expenses of the company. Already, they pay.

But MidAm at least is consistent in its attempts to undermine smart-energy choices and the role of small users and businesses in providing it. We saw it last year as well, when MidAm and Alliant Energy successfully bypassed the IUB by dismantling Iowa’s requirement that they help their customers be more efficient. Previously, electric monopolies rewarded a customer who bought a more efficient refrigerator, or efficient light bulbs, or put in more insulation. No more.

Now MidAm is using the same game plan. Go to the Legislature and convince the members to allow monopolies to destroy small business who make their money at the local level by insulating homes or installing solar panels.

What would Teddy Roosevelt have done? He would stand up to stop utilities’ bullying of fair competition and the freedom of citizens to generate their own electricity. Small businesses, conservationists and citizens who just want more control of their lives are looking for that kind of champion.

David Osterberg is lead environment/energy researcher, founder and former executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City.

dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

Charging all taxpayers private tuition

Vouchers are about mandates, forcing everybody to pay for the few, and diverting resources from public schools.

Iowa taxpayers are on the hook for over $65 million in subsidies each year to private schools in Iowa.[1] Nearly all of these schools are religious schools. While only 6 percent of the students in elementary schools in Iowa are in private schools, all taxpayers help pay for their education (and religious training) through the state taxes they pay. And in nearly three-fourths of Iowa public school districts there is no private school option.

Proposals once again making their way through the Iowa Legislature would expand the subsidies to these private schools, and to the parents who choose to send their children there, through the creation of education savings grants. These proposals would end up costing over $100 million per year, and potentially up to $200 million, money that could instead be used to strengthen education in the public schools serving 94 percent of Iowa’s children.[2]

There are 330 public school districts in Iowa. In 242 of those districts there is no private school offering classes in any grade, Kindergarten through 12th. Private schools are concentrated in Iowa’s metropolitan areas. Nearly half of the total private school enrollment in the state is in just 12 school districts, all located in one of Iowa’s nine metropolitan areas.

The map below shows just how scarce private schools are in rural Iowa. While all 21 of the Iowa counties that are part of a metropolitan area (lighter blue in map) have at least one private school, only 38 of the 78 non-metro counties have a private school option. And in 12 of these counties the options are quite limited: a single school with total enrollment ranging from just 20 to 98. (For an interactive version of the map, click on the image.)

[1] http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2018docs/181105-IFP-pvtschools-bgd.pdf

[2] http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2018docs/181105-roadmap-vouchers.pdf

Peter S. Fisher is research director of the Iowa Policy Project.

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

Drug testing: Needless, costly, burdensome

To assure access to health care, drug testing just gets in the way

Multiple bills introduced in the 2019 Iowa legislative session would limit access to health care by posing bureaucratic hurdles to working families needing help.

Drug-testing Medicaid recipients is one of those ideas. Already shown to be costly and ineffective in other states, the idea is one more solution in search of a problem. Studies show that drug use among work support recipients is lower than the general population.[1] In most states, less than 1 percent of applicants have tested positive.[2]

Neighboring Missouri provides a lesson for Iowa on cost. Missouri spent $336,297 on drug testing of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in 2017.[3] After initial screening, the state tested 108 of 32,774 TANF applicants, finding 11 positive results. That’s an investment of over $30,000 per positive test. Another 305 applicants did not show up for a drug test or refused to take one.[4]

Iowa is familiar with these costs. Last session, a similar bill was proposed to implement drug testing for SNAP and Medicaid recipients. A Department of Human Services administrator estimated that costs to the state would have been at least $100 million.[5]

Medicaid plays a vital role in insuring more than 260,000 Iowa children.[6] Restricting access to medical care through drug testing poses a threat to child well being, by reducing resources available to the household as a whole.[7]

Over 225,000 Iowans living in working households struggle to make ends meet.[8] Medicaid and Affordable Care Act subsidies are important work supports that help families get by when wages aren’t enough to cover basic costs.

In Iowa, the large majority of Medicaid recipients who can work do work. Eighty-seven percent live in a working family and 72 percent work themselves.[9]

Instead of making it more difficult for low-income families to get the medical care they need, Iowa can invest in its workers by expanding the state Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Care Assistance programs. Other alternatives include raising wages to more accurately reflect workers’ productivity and higher living costs, or adequately funding mental health care.

 

[1] Center on Law and Social Policy, “Drug Testing SNAP Applicants is Ineffective and Perpetuates Stereotypes.” July 2017. https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2017/08/Drug-testing-SNAP-Applicants-is-Ineffective-Perpetuates-Stereotypes.pdf

[2] Center on Law and Social Policy, “Drug Testing and Public Assistance.” February 2019. https://www.clasp.org/publications/fact-sheet/drug-testing-and-public-assistance

[3] Ibid.

[4] Amanda Michelle Gomez and Josh Israel, “States waste hundreds of thousands on drug testing for welfare, but have little to show for it.” May 2018. Think Progress. https://thinkprogress.org/states-waste-hundreds-of-thousands-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-3d17c154cbe8/

[5] O. Kay Henderson, Iowa Senate bill to require drug tests, work for welfare.” February 2018. Radio Iowa. https://www.radioiowa.com/2018/02/15/iowa-senate-bill-to-require-drug-tests-work-for-welfare/

[6] American Community Survey, “Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by State and Age for All People: 2017. September 2018. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/health-insurance/acs-hi.html

[7] Center on Law and Social Policy, “Drug Testing and Public Assistance.”

[8] Peter Fisher and Natalie Veldhouse, “The Cost of Living in Iowa 2018 Edition Part 2: Many Iowa Households Struggle to Meet Basic Needs.” July 2018. Iowa Policy Project. http://iowapolicyproject.org/2018Research/180702-COL-Part2.html

[9] Rachel Garfield, Robin Rudowitz, & Anthony Damico, “Understanding the Intersection of Medicaid and Work.” January 2018. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/understanding-the-intersection-of-medicaid-and-work/

 

2018-NV-6w_3497(1)

 

Natalie Veldhouse is a research associate for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. nveldhouse@iowapolicyproject.org

Boost work: Keep Medicaid accessible

Complicating Iowans’ ability to get checkups and the medications they need will not improve workforce participation.

Iowa’s Medicaid program carries two major purposes. First, Medicaid provides medical care for the elderly; in fact, 44 percent of Medicaid spending goes for long-term services and supports for seniors.[1] About half of Iowa nursing home residents benefit from Medicaid.[2]

Second, Medicaid covers thousands of Iowans working in low-wage jobs with no health insurance benefits and to thousands of others who have a disability that prevents them from working. Nearly half of all Medicaid recipients in Iowa are children.[3]

The data show that Medicaid is an important work support. Most non-elderly adult Medicaid enrollees in Iowa work — 72 percent — and 87 percent live in a working family.[4]

Among Medicaid enrollees in Iowa, larger shares of African-American and Latino enrollees are working than whites. One-third of Iowa working Medicaid enrollees work in smaller companies, which likely do not provide employer-sponsored insurance. It might surprise Iowans to know the largest group of Iowa workers receiving Medicaid work in elementary and secondary schools.[5]

Imposing new requirements for Medicaid would complicate health-care access for low-wage workers, children, veterans, older Iowans and Iowans with disabilities. It would not improve workforce participation.

Contrary to some political claims, studies in case after case show the main impact of extra Medicaid requirements is not better jobs,[6] but disenrollment in Medicaid, worse health outcomes, less access to care, and financial insecurity.[7] Rather than promoting good health that is important for employment and productivity, added Medicaid eligibility requirements undermine the goal of encouraging work.

If policy makers’ goal is to increase workforce participation, more practical approaches exist in expanding the state Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Care Assistance eligibility.

Not only do new Medicaid requirements fail to encourage work, but they make sustaining coverage difficult for people who are exempt from work, such as Iowans with disabilities, who may face obstacles in documentation and verification. Workers with variable hours, particularly in food service, retail, and seasonal jobs, could face similar issues.

Many working Medicaid enrollees work full time, but their low annual wages still quality them for Medicaid.[8] Rural communities rely heavily on Medicaid; disenrollment could harm rural hospitals and restrict access to care for children, the elderly, and veterans.[9]

It makes no sense to restrict access to health care for Iowans who are working or are exempt due to age or disability status.

 

[1] Steve Eiken, Kate Sredl, Brian Burwell & Angie Amos, “Medicaid Expenditures for Long-Term Services and Supports in FY 2016.” Table 31. Iowa LTSS Percentage Trends. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/ltss/downloads/reports-and-evaluations/ltssexpenditures2016.pdf

[2] Kaiser Family Foundation, “Medicaid’s Role in Nursing Home Care.” Table 1: Medicaid’s Role in Nursing Home Care, by State.  June 2017. https://www.kff.org/infographic/medicaids-role-in-nursing-home-care/

[3] American Community Survey, “Health Insurance Coverage Status and type of Coverage by State and Age for All People: 2017.” Table H105. September 2018. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-hi.html

[4] Rachel Garfield, Robin Rudowitz, & Anthony Damico, “Understanding the Intersection of Medicaid and Work.” January 2018. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/understanding-the-intersection-of-medicaid-and-work/

[5] Ibid.

[6] LaDonna Pavetti, “Work Requirements Don’t Cut Poverty, Evidence Shows.” June 2016. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.  https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/work-requirements-dont-cut-poverty-evidence-shows

[7] Hannah Katch, “Medicaid Work Requirements Will Harm Families, Including Workers.” February 2018. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicaid-work-requirements-will-harm-families-including-workers

[8] Ibid.

[9] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “How Medicaid Work Requirements Will Harm Rural Residents – And Communities.” August 2018. https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/how-medicaid-work-requirements-will-harm-rural-residents-and-communities

 

Natalie Veldhouse is a research associate for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. nveldhouse@iowapolicyproject.org

Long way to King’s goal

Persistent segregation, plus deindustrialization and declining in job quality across the region, has created stark and sustained obstacles to equal opportunity and equal outcomes.

As we mark Martin Luther King Day, it is also worth underscoring just how far we need to travel — in Iowa and in the nation — to achieve Dr. King’s aspirations of true and substantive racial equality.

Nationally, the last half-century has seen some progress in African-American educational attainment, wages, and incomes. But gains on other fronts — including home ownership, wealth, unemployment, and incarceration — have been elusive.

Regrettably, Iowa (and its upper Midwestern neighbors) remain among the starkest settings for racial inequality across a number of dimensions. Historically, Midwestern and rustbelt metropolitan areas have always been among the segregated places to live. Indeed black-white segregation in Iowa’s metro areas has persisted across the last generation and — in the Iowa City metro — has actually worsened since 1990. This, coupled, with the sustained impact of deindustrialization and declining in job quality across the region, has created stark and sustained obstacles to equal opportunity and equal outcomes.

The result is a jarring juxtaposition: While Midwestern metros (Des Moines, Madison, Minneapolis) typically crowd the “best places to live” lists, they are also among the very worst places to live for African-Americans. In one recent analysis, ranking the states by an index of racial inequality, Iowa and its immediate neighbors (Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Illinois) were the top (worst) five states.

Below, I have calculated Iowa’s position (rank among the states) across five key dimensions. For poverty, income, unemployment, and homeowners I used the Census Bureau’s 2013-2017 American Community Survey (pooling five years of data, given the size of the African-American sample in Iowa, provides a more reliable estimate); for rates of incarceration, I rely on the ongoing work of the Sentencing Project.

Here are the results:

1.  Although Iowa’s unemployment rate is low, the white-black gap is persistent. At 7.2 percent, the African-American unemployment rate is more than double the rate (3.2 percent) for white Iowans (2013-17). We are one of 16 states to reach this dubious threshold; the ratio of white-to-black employment in Iowa is the eighth worst in the country.

2.  African-American household median income in Iowa ($30,505) is barely half white household income. On this measure, we rank seventh worst in the country.

3.  On poverty, the disparity is even starker. The African-American poverty rate in Iowa (34.1 percent) is more than triple the white poverty rate (10.0 percent). We rank sixth worst in the country.

4.  Almost three quarters (74.1 percent) of white Iowan heads of households own their homes, almost triple the rate (27 percent) for black heads of household. On this metric, Iowa has the seventh worst disparity in the country.

5.  One of every 17 black men in Iowa are in prison, a rate of incarceration that is the third worst (behind only Vermont and Oklahoma) in the country. The ratio of black-white incarceration in Iowa is 11.1: 1 (for every white adult in prison there are 11.1 black adults in prison), again ranking third worst (behind Wisconsin and New Jersey).

Colin Gordon is senior research consultant for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. A professor of history at the University of Iowa, Gordon also has authored IPP’s State of Working Iowa reports. Contact: cgordonipp@gmail.com

Ag Gag: Never a good idea

Restoring Iowans’ rights with the strikedown of Iowa’s “ag-gag” law is an important step forward. Next, someone needs to test the Iowa law reducing neighbors’ rights to sue big hog facilities.

pigs-matrixThe Iowa Legislature and our former governor just got a spanking by the courts. The “ag-gag” law they created in 2012 is unconstitutional because it violates free speech.

As Trish Mehaffey reported last week in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, the law “threatened up to a year in jail for those individuals who use undercover means or provide false identities to document or report on activities in the agricultural animal facilities.” In other words, the law — now overturned — had criminalized actions by a whistle blower.

Another law passed and signed in 2017 needs similar testing by the courts. This one restricted nuisance suits by neighbors against large animal production facilities, as IPP reported in March 2017.

The source of both laws was the ag industry, which has successfully lobbied legislators to avoid better approaches to livestock production, with scare tactics about the survival of the industry. Their claims are nonsense.

For evidence, look to Denmark — like Iowa, a big and thriving producer of hogs, but with many more restrictions. Rather than making it a crime to report on abuse of animals, Denmark requires that:

“All Danish pigs are produced within independently monitored assurance schemes, which also require a monthly visit by the local veterinarian. In addition, the Danish authorities run an annual programme of ‘unannounced’ visits to ensure that all welfare legislation is being complied with.” [1]

In other words, whistleblowing would be encouraged.

Denmark has other rules in its promotion of a strong industry that considers animal welfare and protection of human health:

  • Required “showering systems for all pigs over 20kg weight to enable them to regulate their body temperature in hot weather.
  • A 2015 ban on the use of fully slatted flooring systems allows pigs a more comfortable lying area. [2]
  • Reducing antibiotic use in all animals by 49 percent from 1994 through 2016, while production of food animals actually increased by 15 percent. [3] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has only a voluntary program to reduce antibiotic use in animal agriculture and this effort has yet to show decreases in total amount of antimicrobials. [4]

In Iowa, ways have been shown to raise hogs other than in confinements that are outside the public eye or contrary to neighbors’ concerns. Hoop houses offer one such alternative. Among environmental advantages, hoop houses remove one problem because manure produced is mixed with straw or other materials. That manure can be applied to land with much less danger of running off into streams, a problem with liquid manure from confinements.

Restoring Iowans’ rights with the strikedown of Iowa’s “ag-gag” law is an important step forward. Next, someone needs to test the Iowa law reducing neighbors’ rights to sue big hog facilities.

[1] Agriculture and Food.co.uk. Providing Information on the Danish Pig industry. Overview https://agricultureandfood.co.uk/welfare/overview

[2] Ibid.

[3] Statens Serum Institut, National Veterinary Institute, National Food Institute. “DANMAP 2016.”

[4] United States, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine. “Guidance for Industry #213.” December 2013, https://tinyurl.com/ybkn2uk5.

2016-osterberg_5464 David Osterberg, co-founder of the Iowa Policy Project in 2001 and a state legislator from the 1983 through 1994 sessions of the General Assembly, is the lead environmental researcher for the Iowa Policy Project. Contact: dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

Listen to Osterberg’s interview on this topic with Michael Devine of KVFD, 1400AM in Fort Dodge.