By Harold Brubaker - Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer - Oct. 25, 2007
The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is putting the kibosh on the increasingly popular milk labels that say dairy cows were not treated with artificial growth hormones.
The move surprised Wawa Inc., which just last week joined the rush of retailers and milk processors that say their milk will not be produced with the aid of artificial growth hormones, which are used to boost production.
"Early on, we've had some positive feedback," Wawa spokeswoman Lori Bruce said yesterday. "We think that consumers want to know."
Wawa's label says that the farmers it buys raw milk from have pledged not to use rBST, or recombinant bovine somatotropin. The label includes notice that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has found no significant difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.
The state change in labeling guidelines, which blindsided many in the industry, is part of a broader effort by the Pennsylvania agriculture department to crack down on labels that highlight what is not in a product, such as "antibiotic-free" and "pesticide-free."
The department said yesterday that it had examined labels from 140 companies and notified 16 companies that they would have to correct their labels by Jan. 1. Those labels contain variations on the claim that cows were not injected with synthetic growth hormones. Three also include a "no antibiotics" claim.
Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff said in a news release that "antibiotic-free" and "pesticide-free" are misleading because all processed milk sold in the state is tested a minimum of 10 times for such substances, which are not permitted in milk.
The problem with the claim that cows are not treated with synthetic hormones is that there is no way to distinguish between the natural growth hormone in milk and the artificial version, Wolff said.
Advocates for sustainable agriculture favor the label regarding artificial growth hormones, especially if a more stringent verification process can be established.
"The consumer needs to be able to make a choice and needs to have the information to make a decision," said Leslie Zuck, executive director of Pennsylvania Certified Organic, a nonprofit in Centre Hall, Pa., that certifies organic farmers.
Read more in the Philadelphia Inquirer
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Allstate profit under fire - Regulators also call reinsurance into question in debating refunds
By PURVA PATEL - Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle - Oct. 25, 2007
Allstate Texas Lloyds factored in excessive profits and costs into its latest rate increase imposed on Texas homeowners, regulators allege in an order demanding refunds.
Those are just two on a list of concerns the Texas Department of Insurance has with the way the company justifies its rates.
But for the state's insurance consumer advocate, they are the two most significant — the company's targeted profit and cost of reinsurance, or the coverage it buys to help pay for claims after a catastrophe.
In August, Allstate implemented a flat 5.9 percent increase statewide and an additional average 2.1 percent bump for homeowners in some coastal and near-coastal counties upon renewal.
Regulators then issued an order halting the hike, but Allstate obtained a judge's ruling blocking the state from preventing the increase.
Allstate is preparing to fight the refund order at an administrative law judge hearing scheduled for Dec. 3 in Austin.
"We are confident in the number, and we believe it puts us in a good place and a responsible place for our customers," said Bill Mellander, a spokesman for the insurer. "We would not have implemented these rates if we didn't believe them to be justified, competitive and strong from a consumer perspective."
A spokesman for the department declined to comment on the refund order's specifics.
"We look forward to debating the merits of the rates themselves," said Jerry Hagins, a spokesman for the department.
Various costs
The Insurance Department examines how a company factors various costs and potential profits into its rates to determine if the rates are justified.
One of the more significant factors mentioned in the refund order is Allstate's profit provision, or how much of its collected premiums the company hopes to have left over after paying out losses and expenses, said Rod Bordelon, head of the Office of Public Insurance Counsel, who represents consumers at rate hearings.
The company has a target of 10.4 percent.
"In our view it's grossly too high," Bordelon said.
His office hasn't determined exactly what it should be, he said, but will after it gets more information from the company. He says it's the highest profit provision he's ever seen a Texas home insurer use.
Bordelon notes that profit targets are subjective and companies that take on more risk may expect more of a profit.
"Homeowners is fairly risky, but it doesn't result in huge differences among companies," he said, adding that Allstate has some exposure to risky parts of Texas but is also spread out all over the state and has cut back coverage in some areas, which mitigates some of the riskiness in their business.
Mellander said 10.4 percent is not unusual. He declined to say if this is the first time Allstate has used a profit provision of more than 10 percent for homeowners insurance in Texas.
"Define reasonable," he said. "It's frustrating to see anyone out there making these blanket statements. Well, what's a reasonable profit and what qualifies them to say it's reasonable?"
He also said that if Allstate hadn't pulled back on some of the coverage it offers in Texas, its rates would potentially be even higher.
Balancing act
Insurance companies, especially those that are public, have to play a delicate balancing act, said Craig Weber, a senior analyst with consulting company Celent. Allstate Texas Lloyds is subsidiary of its parent, Allstate Corp.
"I'm sure if I'm an Allstate shareholder, I'm anxious for them to be profitable and keep the stock price healthy," Weber said. "As an Allstate customer, I would want them to keep the rates affordable. They serve many masters."
Allstate Texas Lloyds has about 600,000 home policyholders in Texas and collected $719 million in premiums in 2006.
Reinsurance questioned
Regulators also claim Allstate's estimate of its net cost of reinsurance is too high. The net cost is the actual cost of the coverage, $82.4 million, minus the amount it expects to recover from a reinsurer after a catastrophe, $38.4 million, according to the company's filing.
That cost is usually passed on to consumers as part of their insurance rates.
In the refund order, regulators also note concerns raised by Bordelon's office, such as whether Allstate needs reinsurance, or so much, since the company has reduced its exposure and whether consumers should have to bear the costs for the reinsurance at all.
Allstate stopped writing new homeowners business in some Texas coastal areas in March 2006 and later stopped renewing windstorm coverage for policyholders along the coast.
Allstate says its estimate net cost of reinsurance of $44 million is accurate and that it doesn't pass on all the costs of the coverage to consumers. Mellander declined to say what percent of the cost the company retains.
Without reinsurance, the company's rates could be higher, he said.
"It allows us to assume a little more risk, take on a little more coverage, and it allows us to manage the costs passed on to consumers," he said.
Allstate Texas Lloyds factored in excessive profits and costs into its latest rate increase imposed on Texas homeowners, regulators allege in an order demanding refunds.
Those are just two on a list of concerns the Texas Department of Insurance has with the way the company justifies its rates.
But for the state's insurance consumer advocate, they are the two most significant — the company's targeted profit and cost of reinsurance, or the coverage it buys to help pay for claims after a catastrophe.
In August, Allstate implemented a flat 5.9 percent increase statewide and an additional average 2.1 percent bump for homeowners in some coastal and near-coastal counties upon renewal.
Regulators then issued an order halting the hike, but Allstate obtained a judge's ruling blocking the state from preventing the increase.
Allstate is preparing to fight the refund order at an administrative law judge hearing scheduled for Dec. 3 in Austin.
"We are confident in the number, and we believe it puts us in a good place and a responsible place for our customers," said Bill Mellander, a spokesman for the insurer. "We would not have implemented these rates if we didn't believe them to be justified, competitive and strong from a consumer perspective."
A spokesman for the department declined to comment on the refund order's specifics.
"We look forward to debating the merits of the rates themselves," said Jerry Hagins, a spokesman for the department.
Various costs
The Insurance Department examines how a company factors various costs and potential profits into its rates to determine if the rates are justified.
One of the more significant factors mentioned in the refund order is Allstate's profit provision, or how much of its collected premiums the company hopes to have left over after paying out losses and expenses, said Rod Bordelon, head of the Office of Public Insurance Counsel, who represents consumers at rate hearings.
The company has a target of 10.4 percent.
"In our view it's grossly too high," Bordelon said.
His office hasn't determined exactly what it should be, he said, but will after it gets more information from the company. He says it's the highest profit provision he's ever seen a Texas home insurer use.
Bordelon notes that profit targets are subjective and companies that take on more risk may expect more of a profit.
"Homeowners is fairly risky, but it doesn't result in huge differences among companies," he said, adding that Allstate has some exposure to risky parts of Texas but is also spread out all over the state and has cut back coverage in some areas, which mitigates some of the riskiness in their business.
Mellander said 10.4 percent is not unusual. He declined to say if this is the first time Allstate has used a profit provision of more than 10 percent for homeowners insurance in Texas.
"Define reasonable," he said. "It's frustrating to see anyone out there making these blanket statements. Well, what's a reasonable profit and what qualifies them to say it's reasonable?"
He also said that if Allstate hadn't pulled back on some of the coverage it offers in Texas, its rates would potentially be even higher.
Balancing act
Insurance companies, especially those that are public, have to play a delicate balancing act, said Craig Weber, a senior analyst with consulting company Celent. Allstate Texas Lloyds is subsidiary of its parent, Allstate Corp.
"I'm sure if I'm an Allstate shareholder, I'm anxious for them to be profitable and keep the stock price healthy," Weber said. "As an Allstate customer, I would want them to keep the rates affordable. They serve many masters."
Allstate Texas Lloyds has about 600,000 home policyholders in Texas and collected $719 million in premiums in 2006.
Reinsurance questioned
Regulators also claim Allstate's estimate of its net cost of reinsurance is too high. The net cost is the actual cost of the coverage, $82.4 million, minus the amount it expects to recover from a reinsurer after a catastrophe, $38.4 million, according to the company's filing.
That cost is usually passed on to consumers as part of their insurance rates.
In the refund order, regulators also note concerns raised by Bordelon's office, such as whether Allstate needs reinsurance, or so much, since the company has reduced its exposure and whether consumers should have to bear the costs for the reinsurance at all.
Allstate stopped writing new homeowners business in some Texas coastal areas in March 2006 and later stopped renewing windstorm coverage for policyholders along the coast.
Allstate says its estimate net cost of reinsurance of $44 million is accurate and that it doesn't pass on all the costs of the coverage to consumers. Mellander declined to say what percent of the cost the company retains.
Without reinsurance, the company's rates could be higher, he said.
"It allows us to assume a little more risk, take on a little more coverage, and it allows us to manage the costs passed on to consumers," he said.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Court upholds Allstate homeowner insurance increase - State's attempt to roll back 5.9% rate hike is rejected
By Texas Watch - Oct. 18,2007
State's attempt to roll back 5.9% rate hike is rejected Court upholds Allstate homeowner insurance increase
By CHRISTY HOPPE - The Dallas Morning News - Oct. 18, 2007
AUSTIN – Allstate Insurance can continue to charge a 5.9 percent rate increase that it imposed on homeowner policies in August after a court threw out the state's attempt to roll back the increase.
Allstate maintained that its rate increase followed state law and that the Texas Department of Insurance acted improperly in trying to nullify it. A state district judge in Travis County agreed and issued an order Monday evening.
Bill Mellander, a spokesman for Allstate, said the insurer had been certain the judge would affirm that the increase was implemented correctly.
"We are equally as confident that the rate itself is competitive, justified and, more importantly, that it is attractive and good for the consumer," Mr. Mellander said.
Insurance Department spokesman Jerry Hagins said the agency is disappointed in the judge's ruling but stands by its decision that the new rate is excessive. The agency will continue to pursue an order requiring Allstate to roll back its rates and give refunds to customers.
At issue is the state's "file and use" law, which largely has unregulated insurance rates. As envisioned by lawmakers, insurance companies can file notice of new rates with the state insurance agency but don't have to wait for the regulatory process before using the new charges.
If the state found the new rates to be excessive, the insurance agency could order them rolled back and the insurer would reimburse its policyholders.
In Allstate's case, the company already is in court over a 2004 rate hike, fighting the state's contention that it overcharged its policyholders $56 million and owes them a refund.
When it filed the rate hike in August, the charges took effect immediately, but the state fought the increase, saying it disapproved of the new amount. The judge said Allstate followed the law.
"This says that the file-and-use system is broken," said Alex Winslow, executive director of Texas Watch, a consumer-advocacy group.
He said that if history is a guide, the state will again find new rates excessive and Allstate will go to court and fight any refunds.
"I don't think Allstate policyholders should be holding their breath," Mr. Winslow said.
The state's largest home insurer, State Farm, has been fighting a customer refund in the courts since 2003.
With the rate hikes effective immediately, the state has to play catch-up to determine whether the rate is unjustified.
"The bottom line is that Allstate is driving a huge truck through a loophole in the law, and I have no doubt that other insurance companies are cranking up their engines as we speak," Mr. Winslow said.
Staff writer Karen Brooks contributed to this report.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News
Travis County District Judge Margaret Cooper has ruled that a loophole in state law allows Allstate to continue charging its policyholders a rate that the insurance department deems excessive. Texas Watch points to this as an example of how Texas's current system of insurance industry oversight is broken and is calling on lawmakers to give the insurance commissioner the authority to approve rates before - not after - they are imposed on Texas homeowners.
State's attempt to roll back 5.9% rate hike is rejected Court upholds Allstate homeowner insurance increase
By CHRISTY HOPPE - The Dallas Morning News - Oct. 18, 2007
AUSTIN – Allstate Insurance can continue to charge a 5.9 percent rate increase that it imposed on homeowner policies in August after a court threw out the state's attempt to roll back the increase.
Allstate maintained that its rate increase followed state law and that the Texas Department of Insurance acted improperly in trying to nullify it. A state district judge in Travis County agreed and issued an order Monday evening.
Bill Mellander, a spokesman for Allstate, said the insurer had been certain the judge would affirm that the increase was implemented correctly.
"We are equally as confident that the rate itself is competitive, justified and, more importantly, that it is attractive and good for the consumer," Mr. Mellander said.
Insurance Department spokesman Jerry Hagins said the agency is disappointed in the judge's ruling but stands by its decision that the new rate is excessive. The agency will continue to pursue an order requiring Allstate to roll back its rates and give refunds to customers.
At issue is the state's "file and use" law, which largely has unregulated insurance rates. As envisioned by lawmakers, insurance companies can file notice of new rates with the state insurance agency but don't have to wait for the regulatory process before using the new charges.
If the state found the new rates to be excessive, the insurance agency could order them rolled back and the insurer would reimburse its policyholders.
In Allstate's case, the company already is in court over a 2004 rate hike, fighting the state's contention that it overcharged its policyholders $56 million and owes them a refund.
When it filed the rate hike in August, the charges took effect immediately, but the state fought the increase, saying it disapproved of the new amount. The judge said Allstate followed the law.
"This says that the file-and-use system is broken," said Alex Winslow, executive director of Texas Watch, a consumer-advocacy group.
He said that if history is a guide, the state will again find new rates excessive and Allstate will go to court and fight any refunds.
"I don't think Allstate policyholders should be holding their breath," Mr. Winslow said.
The state's largest home insurer, State Farm, has been fighting a customer refund in the courts since 2003.
With the rate hikes effective immediately, the state has to play catch-up to determine whether the rate is unjustified.
"The bottom line is that Allstate is driving a huge truck through a loophole in the law, and I have no doubt that other insurance companies are cranking up their engines as we speak," Mr. Winslow said.
Staff writer Karen Brooks contributed to this report.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News
Friday, October 19, 2007
Star Telegram Opinion: A rational vote
Editorial - Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Oct. 18, 2007
Children's healthcare shouldn't be a partisan issue. And the U.S. House can send that message today by voting to override President Bush's ill-advised and unnecessary veto of a reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as SCHIP.
In September, 45 Republicans and 220 Democrats voted to approve a package that largely tracked a Senate CHIP bill. Senators from both parties joined to pass the compromise measure with a veto-proof majority.
Reps. Kay Granger of Fort Worth and Michael Burgess of Lewisville, who joined too many Texas Republicans in voting against the bill, surely don't oppose providing health coverage for children in struggling families. But they are misguided in not agreeing that the package is a workable, reasonable way to continue a valuable program and extend coverage to millions of children who otherwise would remain uninsured.
The bill, which would add $35 billion to CHIP over five years, would bring total spending for the program to $60 billion. It would cover about 4 million more children, the majority of whom already are eligible though not enrolled.
Bush has insisted on adding only $1 billion a year, for a total of $30 billion over five years. But that wouldn't even maintain coverage for children currently enrolled; even Republicans who support the $35 billion expansion point out that Bush's level of funding would cause 800,000 children to be dropped.
Perhaps the most misleading criticism of the expansion is that it amounts to middle-class welfare that would prompt thousands to jump from private insurance to the public dole.
Republican and Democratic negotiators -- including Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Max Baucus of Montana -- crafted a bill that answers concerns of critics who said the program had strayed from its roots. The measure includes incentives for states to not expand eligibility limits too far and to enroll uninsured children on the lower end of the income scale. The measure bars coverage of legal and illegal immigrants. It prevents states from extending coverage to parents or childless adults.
In Texas, families earning up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line ($41,300 for a family of four) are eligible for CHIP, and about 327,000 children currently are covered. But of the 1.5 million uninsured children in Texas, about two-thirds fall below 200 percent of the poverty line, according to the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities.
Other approaches might provide more efficient, less expensive ways of extending coverage to the uninsured. But none is developed enough to offer a practical, available alternative to the CHIP plan that already has won support from a large majority of both chambers in Congress and more than 40 of the nation's governors.
A vote to override Bush isn't a vote for reckless spending -- it's a vote for rationality.
Children's healthcare shouldn't be a partisan issue. And the U.S. House can send that message today by voting to override President Bush's ill-advised and unnecessary veto of a reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as SCHIP.
In September, 45 Republicans and 220 Democrats voted to approve a package that largely tracked a Senate CHIP bill. Senators from both parties joined to pass the compromise measure with a veto-proof majority.
Reps. Kay Granger of Fort Worth and Michael Burgess of Lewisville, who joined too many Texas Republicans in voting against the bill, surely don't oppose providing health coverage for children in struggling families. But they are misguided in not agreeing that the package is a workable, reasonable way to continue a valuable program and extend coverage to millions of children who otherwise would remain uninsured.
The bill, which would add $35 billion to CHIP over five years, would bring total spending for the program to $60 billion. It would cover about 4 million more children, the majority of whom already are eligible though not enrolled.
Bush has insisted on adding only $1 billion a year, for a total of $30 billion over five years. But that wouldn't even maintain coverage for children currently enrolled; even Republicans who support the $35 billion expansion point out that Bush's level of funding would cause 800,000 children to be dropped.
Perhaps the most misleading criticism of the expansion is that it amounts to middle-class welfare that would prompt thousands to jump from private insurance to the public dole.
Republican and Democratic negotiators -- including Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Max Baucus of Montana -- crafted a bill that answers concerns of critics who said the program had strayed from its roots. The measure includes incentives for states to not expand eligibility limits too far and to enroll uninsured children on the lower end of the income scale. The measure bars coverage of legal and illegal immigrants. It prevents states from extending coverage to parents or childless adults.
In Texas, families earning up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line ($41,300 for a family of four) are eligible for CHIP, and about 327,000 children currently are covered. But of the 1.5 million uninsured children in Texas, about two-thirds fall below 200 percent of the poverty line, according to the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities.
Other approaches might provide more efficient, less expensive ways of extending coverage to the uninsured. But none is developed enough to offer a practical, available alternative to the CHIP plan that already has won support from a large majority of both chambers in Congress and more than 40 of the nation's governors.
A vote to override Bush isn't a vote for reckless spending -- it's a vote for rationality.
Monday, October 15, 2007
At human services, they need humans to answer phones
By DAVE LIEBER - Star-Telegram staff writer - Sun, Oct. 14, 2007
Pat Dapeer said that if The Watchdog didn't believe what she was saying, he should try for himself.
Make phone calls to the state offices that handle the food stamp program. See if anyone answers the telephone. She almost dared me.
The 66-year-old disabled Watauga woman says it's a tossup which is worse: going hungry or dealing with the food stamp bureaucracy.
Let me summarize how my telephone testing of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission offices went.
Ring ... ring ... ring. No answering machine of any kind on calls to a local food stamp office. Just ring ... ring ... ring.
On some other phone lines I tested, an automated voice machine answered the phone and led me through prompts. But the voice system doesn't let you go backward. If you hit a wrong button, it tells you to call again before saying, "Goodbye." On another customer-assistance line, I called a half-dozen times to hear all the choices, which usually led me to more automated voice systems or the dreaded ring ... ring ... ring.
Twice, I found human beings on the other end of an HHS phone. But these people I spoke to from HHS didn't argue when I told them of Dapeer's frustrations. They know.
"A huge problem," HHS spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman said. "For years, we had high caseloads and antiquated technology and phone systems in our offices. We've been trying to undergo an effort to modernize."
The ringing phones are fallout from a major experiment in state government that nearly everyone involved calls a disaster. Texas tried to become the first state to outsource to private companies the administration of its top assistance programs such as food stamps, Medicaid and cash assistance for needy families.
The state hired a group of companies, led by technology consulting firm Accenture, for $899 million for five years to run call centers, update the department's technology systems and perform other duties. But the company's debut in several Central Texas call centers was such a disaster that state officials called the project off. By then, though, many longtime state employees had left, thinking their jobs were gone.
The results are skimpy front lines of state workers helping those needing assistance. Those who need to call these phone numbers for assistance include applicants who are denied benefits and wish to appeal, disabled people who can't travel and people like Dapeer who have questions about existing benefits.
Governing magazine published a September report on "The Struggle to Streamline" that said Texas' venture into privatization "turned into a dark comedy of bungled work; unanswered and dropped calls; applications lost, ignored and misdirected."
Dapeer said: "Just because we're on food stamps is no reason for us to put up with that type of service. We lose our pride when we have to do that to begin with, and when we have to go through the other garbage we have to deal with, well, that just puts us lower on the totem pole."
When Dapeer couldn't get anywhere with HHS officials in solving the problem with her benefits, she complained to the Texas attorney general's office.
Suddenly, HHS officials were answering her calls and trying to work with her.
"A person shouldn't have to go to the attorney general to get something done," she said.
HHS spokeswoman Goodman says that changes are in the works. New telephone systems are coming for 22 of more than 300 field offices. Most of the 22 are in urban areas, where phones are less likely to be answered. The Fort Worth office on John T. White Road is scheduled for new phones, she says. Other offices will have to wait.
The Watchdog's testing of the phone system yielded a few results that should embarrass the state:
The operator's phone at the John T. White Road office in Fort Worth was never picked up.
A voice on an automated phone system directs callers to a different phone number if they want information. But information on what? The voice mumbles. I listened a half-dozen times: It sounded like "E-did-ity." Turned out to be "EBT" -- a reference to Electronic Benefit Transfer cards used to deliver food stamp benefits. But many people don't know what an EBT is. The state has called these the Lone Star Card. Why not use that name?
I gleaned the number for the commission's ombudsman, to whom clients can make formal complaints about poor service, from a voice prompt on one of the HHS customer-service lines. When I called, I was left on hold for close to an hour (with smooth jazz) before I gave up. An automated voice kept interrupting the jazz to persuade me to call other numbers because the wait was so long. But those numbers sent me back to other lines on which I had no success.
One hot-line worker I spoke with said she didn't have a directory of phone numbers of other HHS offices. What do you do when you need a number? I asked. Her answer: "I do a Google search."
If you press a wrong number, a voice prompt says the following before disconnecting you: "I'm sorry. That is not a valid choice. Please call again. Goodbye." Arrgghh.
The phones aren't the only issue. In a few smaller offices, Goodman said, HHS staffers still use typewriters instead of computers. "We know that our current system is not easy for the consumer to use," Goodman said. "It's not easy for our workers, and it's costly for taxpayers. There are so many areas where we can use technology more effectively to support our work force and provide better customer service."
News researcher Stacy Garcia contributed to this report.
In the know
These are the phone numbers that clients of Health and Human Services are supposed to use for help and information. However, note that The Watchdog had problems with several of them.
HHS office at 7450 John T. White Road in Fort Worth: 817-446-5400.
Lone Star Card help desk: 1-800-777-7328.
Customer assistance hot line: 1-800-448-3927
HHS customer service: 1-888-834-7406
Ombudsman: 1-877-787-8999
HHS main headquarters in Austin: 512-424-6500
For information about various social services available in your community, call 211
Facts about food stamps
Who is eligible? Food stamp assistance is available only to people with Social Security numbers.
Is there a work requirement? With certain exceptions, able-bodied adults between ages 16 and 60 must register for work, take part in any employment and training program that they are referred to by the food stamp department, and accept any offer of suitable work.
How long can you get food stamps? Generally, able-bodied adults ages 18 to 50 who do not have children and are not pregnant can get food stamps for only three months in a three-year period unless they are working or participating in a work or workfare program.
How many needy Texans are helped? In October 2007, there were 2.3 million Texans (in 912,102 households) receiving food stamps. Texas places 41st among 50 states in the percentage of eligible people receiving food stamps, well below the national average of 54 percent, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department.
How much are the benefits? Benefits are about $59 a week for the average household of 2.5 people, the state says. That's about $1.12 per person per meal.
What can they be used for? Benefits cannot be used to buy nonfood items such as pet food, soap, paper products, household supplies, alcohol, tobacco, vitamins, medicine or hot foods.
Sources: U.S. Agriculture Department, the Brookings Institution, Texas Health and Human Services Commission
watchdog@star-telegram.com
The Watchdog column appears Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Fort Worth Star Telegram.
Pat Dapeer said that if The Watchdog didn't believe what she was saying, he should try for himself.
Make phone calls to the state offices that handle the food stamp program. See if anyone answers the telephone. She almost dared me.
The 66-year-old disabled Watauga woman says it's a tossup which is worse: going hungry or dealing with the food stamp bureaucracy.
Let me summarize how my telephone testing of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission offices went.
Ring ... ring ... ring. No answering machine of any kind on calls to a local food stamp office. Just ring ... ring ... ring.
On some other phone lines I tested, an automated voice machine answered the phone and led me through prompts. But the voice system doesn't let you go backward. If you hit a wrong button, it tells you to call again before saying, "Goodbye." On another customer-assistance line, I called a half-dozen times to hear all the choices, which usually led me to more automated voice systems or the dreaded ring ... ring ... ring.
Twice, I found human beings on the other end of an HHS phone. But these people I spoke to from HHS didn't argue when I told them of Dapeer's frustrations. They know.
"A huge problem," HHS spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman said. "For years, we had high caseloads and antiquated technology and phone systems in our offices. We've been trying to undergo an effort to modernize."
The ringing phones are fallout from a major experiment in state government that nearly everyone involved calls a disaster. Texas tried to become the first state to outsource to private companies the administration of its top assistance programs such as food stamps, Medicaid and cash assistance for needy families.
The state hired a group of companies, led by technology consulting firm Accenture, for $899 million for five years to run call centers, update the department's technology systems and perform other duties. But the company's debut in several Central Texas call centers was such a disaster that state officials called the project off. By then, though, many longtime state employees had left, thinking their jobs were gone.
The results are skimpy front lines of state workers helping those needing assistance. Those who need to call these phone numbers for assistance include applicants who are denied benefits and wish to appeal, disabled people who can't travel and people like Dapeer who have questions about existing benefits.
Governing magazine published a September report on "The Struggle to Streamline" that said Texas' venture into privatization "turned into a dark comedy of bungled work; unanswered and dropped calls; applications lost, ignored and misdirected."
Dapeer said: "Just because we're on food stamps is no reason for us to put up with that type of service. We lose our pride when we have to do that to begin with, and when we have to go through the other garbage we have to deal with, well, that just puts us lower on the totem pole."
When Dapeer couldn't get anywhere with HHS officials in solving the problem with her benefits, she complained to the Texas attorney general's office.
Suddenly, HHS officials were answering her calls and trying to work with her.
"A person shouldn't have to go to the attorney general to get something done," she said.
HHS spokeswoman Goodman says that changes are in the works. New telephone systems are coming for 22 of more than 300 field offices. Most of the 22 are in urban areas, where phones are less likely to be answered. The Fort Worth office on John T. White Road is scheduled for new phones, she says. Other offices will have to wait.
The Watchdog's testing of the phone system yielded a few results that should embarrass the state:
The operator's phone at the John T. White Road office in Fort Worth was never picked up.
A voice on an automated phone system directs callers to a different phone number if they want information. But information on what? The voice mumbles. I listened a half-dozen times: It sounded like "E-did-ity." Turned out to be "EBT" -- a reference to Electronic Benefit Transfer cards used to deliver food stamp benefits. But many people don't know what an EBT is. The state has called these the Lone Star Card. Why not use that name?
I gleaned the number for the commission's ombudsman, to whom clients can make formal complaints about poor service, from a voice prompt on one of the HHS customer-service lines. When I called, I was left on hold for close to an hour (with smooth jazz) before I gave up. An automated voice kept interrupting the jazz to persuade me to call other numbers because the wait was so long. But those numbers sent me back to other lines on which I had no success.
One hot-line worker I spoke with said she didn't have a directory of phone numbers of other HHS offices. What do you do when you need a number? I asked. Her answer: "I do a Google search."
If you press a wrong number, a voice prompt says the following before disconnecting you: "I'm sorry. That is not a valid choice. Please call again. Goodbye." Arrgghh.
The phones aren't the only issue. In a few smaller offices, Goodman said, HHS staffers still use typewriters instead of computers. "We know that our current system is not easy for the consumer to use," Goodman said. "It's not easy for our workers, and it's costly for taxpayers. There are so many areas where we can use technology more effectively to support our work force and provide better customer service."
News researcher Stacy Garcia contributed to this report.
In the know
These are the phone numbers that clients of Health and Human Services are supposed to use for help and information. However, note that The Watchdog had problems with several of them.
HHS office at 7450 John T. White Road in Fort Worth: 817-446-5400.
Lone Star Card help desk: 1-800-777-7328.
Customer assistance hot line: 1-800-448-3927
HHS customer service: 1-888-834-7406
Ombudsman: 1-877-787-8999
HHS main headquarters in Austin: 512-424-6500
For information about various social services available in your community, call 211
Facts about food stamps
Who is eligible? Food stamp assistance is available only to people with Social Security numbers.
Is there a work requirement? With certain exceptions, able-bodied adults between ages 16 and 60 must register for work, take part in any employment and training program that they are referred to by the food stamp department, and accept any offer of suitable work.
How long can you get food stamps? Generally, able-bodied adults ages 18 to 50 who do not have children and are not pregnant can get food stamps for only three months in a three-year period unless they are working or participating in a work or workfare program.
How many needy Texans are helped? In October 2007, there were 2.3 million Texans (in 912,102 households) receiving food stamps. Texas places 41st among 50 states in the percentage of eligible people receiving food stamps, well below the national average of 54 percent, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department.
How much are the benefits? Benefits are about $59 a week for the average household of 2.5 people, the state says. That's about $1.12 per person per meal.
What can they be used for? Benefits cannot be used to buy nonfood items such as pet food, soap, paper products, household supplies, alcohol, tobacco, vitamins, medicine or hot foods.
Sources: U.S. Agriculture Department, the Brookings Institution, Texas Health and Human Services Commission
watchdog@star-telegram.com
The Watchdog column appears Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Fort Worth Star Telegram.
Lawmakers seeking stricter caregiver rules
By DARREN BARBEE - Star-Telegram staff writer - Oct. 14, 2007
Nurse aides let back into jobs despite ban
A state senator says she wants to improve the background screening of nurse aides and other caregivers after gaps that allow criminals to work in nursing homes were identified in a recent Star-Telegram report.
Advocates for nursing home residents and the industry also expressed concern that some workers banned by the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services for abuse, neglect and theft have been certified as nurse aides by the same department. Some found new jobs caring for the elderly and disabled. Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, said she was troubled to learn that crimes barring employment in nursing homes, such as murder and rape, don't prevent aides from being recertified. Aides and other such workers give the vast majority of care at nursing homes and also work at doctors' offices and hospitals.
Zaffirini, who created key legislation in 1999 designed to bar abusive but unlicensed workers from nursing homes, said her staff is drafting legislation to prevent criminals from being certified. She also wants to deal with workers banned for abuse who are recertified.
"We believed they were being barred from being recertified as a nurse aide. ... That's an aspect of the problem that [the newspaper] pointed out, and we have to go back and address," said Zaffirini, a member and former chairwoman of the state Senate Committee on Health and Human Services.
The senator said she is also considering a bill that would require workers to be rescreened annually. Currently, homes check criminal history just once, before workers or aides are hired. That can allow subsequent convictions to go undetected. For instance, a McAllen aide passed his pre-employment check but later pleaded guilty to indecent exposure. His employers uncovered the conviction only after he was accused of molesting a nursing home resident. The aide denied doing anything wrong, according to state documents.
Tim Graves, president of the Texas Health Care Association, said he supports a periodic recheck of employees' criminal histories. But such checks could financially burden homes, which often operate on tight budgets. Texas ranks 45th out of the 50 states in Medicaid funding for nursing home care, according to the association, which represents long-term-care facilities and professionals.
Graves said the newspaper report also showed problems in the oversight of long-term-care workers. In one case, a worker was banned for failing to perform CPR on a resident who later died. The state recertified her as a nurse aide, and she found another job. She was fired only after the Star-Telegram asked a Plano home about her status.
Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, had asked officials to review policies on criminal-background checks across health and human services agencies, her spokesman said. Nelson, leader of the Health and Human Services committee, was unavailable for an interview.
Nelson said in a statement that nurse aides with serious criminal records should not have access to the frail and elderly. In the past session, Nelson authored a bill that added new criminal offenses, such as indecent exposure and cruelty to animals, to those that bar long-term-care workers from employment in state-regulated facilities. But workers won't be rescreened for the new convictions, the department said.
Checking out workers
The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services provides an online database that allows a search for workers, nurse aides, administrators and others who have been designated as unemployable. Because Texas has more than 118,000 active certified nurse aides, verifying the status of a nurse aide or worker, especially one with a common name, can be difficult without a Social Security number. If you suspect an aide shouldn't be working, bring concerns to the attention of the nursing home or the department at 1-800-458-9858. To perform a search, go to www.dads.state.tx.us/providers/nf/credentialing/sanctions
Checking out nursing homes
The department also maintains basic inspection information about nursing homes online. Additionally, nursing homes must make their most recent inspection reports public. The surveyor's notes can sometimes provide insight into how well residents are treated and how clean things are kept. To look up a home, go to facilityquality.dads.state.tx.us
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram.
Nurse aides let back into jobs despite ban
A state senator says she wants to improve the background screening of nurse aides and other caregivers after gaps that allow criminals to work in nursing homes were identified in a recent Star-Telegram report.
Advocates for nursing home residents and the industry also expressed concern that some workers banned by the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services for abuse, neglect and theft have been certified as nurse aides by the same department. Some found new jobs caring for the elderly and disabled. Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, said she was troubled to learn that crimes barring employment in nursing homes, such as murder and rape, don't prevent aides from being recertified. Aides and other such workers give the vast majority of care at nursing homes and also work at doctors' offices and hospitals.
Zaffirini, who created key legislation in 1999 designed to bar abusive but unlicensed workers from nursing homes, said her staff is drafting legislation to prevent criminals from being certified. She also wants to deal with workers banned for abuse who are recertified.
"We believed they were being barred from being recertified as a nurse aide. ... That's an aspect of the problem that [the newspaper] pointed out, and we have to go back and address," said Zaffirini, a member and former chairwoman of the state Senate Committee on Health and Human Services.
The senator said she is also considering a bill that would require workers to be rescreened annually. Currently, homes check criminal history just once, before workers or aides are hired. That can allow subsequent convictions to go undetected. For instance, a McAllen aide passed his pre-employment check but later pleaded guilty to indecent exposure. His employers uncovered the conviction only after he was accused of molesting a nursing home resident. The aide denied doing anything wrong, according to state documents.
Tim Graves, president of the Texas Health Care Association, said he supports a periodic recheck of employees' criminal histories. But such checks could financially burden homes, which often operate on tight budgets. Texas ranks 45th out of the 50 states in Medicaid funding for nursing home care, according to the association, which represents long-term-care facilities and professionals.
Graves said the newspaper report also showed problems in the oversight of long-term-care workers. In one case, a worker was banned for failing to perform CPR on a resident who later died. The state recertified her as a nurse aide, and she found another job. She was fired only after the Star-Telegram asked a Plano home about her status.
Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, had asked officials to review policies on criminal-background checks across health and human services agencies, her spokesman said. Nelson, leader of the Health and Human Services committee, was unavailable for an interview.
Nelson said in a statement that nurse aides with serious criminal records should not have access to the frail and elderly. In the past session, Nelson authored a bill that added new criminal offenses, such as indecent exposure and cruelty to animals, to those that bar long-term-care workers from employment in state-regulated facilities. But workers won't be rescreened for the new convictions, the department said.
Checking out workers
The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services provides an online database that allows a search for workers, nurse aides, administrators and others who have been designated as unemployable. Because Texas has more than 118,000 active certified nurse aides, verifying the status of a nurse aide or worker, especially one with a common name, can be difficult without a Social Security number. If you suspect an aide shouldn't be working, bring concerns to the attention of the nursing home or the department at 1-800-458-9858. To perform a search, go to www.dads.state.tx.us/providers/nf/credentialing/sanctions
Checking out nursing homes
The department also maintains basic inspection information about nursing homes online. Additionally, nursing homes must make their most recent inspection reports public. The surveyor's notes can sometimes provide insight into how well residents are treated and how clean things are kept. To look up a home, go to facilityquality.dads.state.tx.us
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
