by Georgia Center for Opportunity | May 19, 2015
We had an unusual experience last week, with President Obama participating in, of all things, a panel discussion on poverty with three leading public intellectuals, E.J. Dionne, Jr., Robert Putnam, and Arthur Brooks. The conversation ranged pretty widely, with a number of issues coming up, some of which didn’t get all that much attention. I know that there were some hot button moments, which received a good bit of radio and television air time, not to mention editorial and blogosphere commentary, but I’d rather take a deep breath and proceed just a bit more calmly.
Let me begin by observing that the President displayed flashes of the persona that made him at least somewhat appealing when he first appeared on the national scene. He at least said he wanted to get past the partisan divide where one side spoke only about economics and the other only about culture:
The stereotype is that you’ve got folks on the left who just want to pour more money into social programs, and don’t care anything about culture or parenting or family structures, and that’s one stereotype. And then you’ve got cold-hearted, free market, capitalist types who are reading Ayn Rand and…think everybody are moochers. And I think the truth is more complicated.
I think that there are those on the conservative spectrum who deeply care about the least of these, deeply care about the poor; exhibit that through their churches, through community groups, through philanthropic efforts, but are suspicious of what government can do. And then there are those on the left who I think are in the trenches every day and see how important parenting is and how important family structures are, and the connective tissue that holds communities together and recognize that that contributes to poverty when those structures fray, but also believe that government and resources can make a difference in creating an environment in which young people can succeed despite great odds.
And it seems to me that if coming out of this conversation we can have a both/and conversation rather than either/or conversation, then we’ll be making some progress.
I agree: let’s talk about poverty in terms both of the economic straits in which individuals and families find themselves and of the culture (embodied in the media, schools, and government programs, as well as in churches and other community institutions) that should, but doesn’t necessarily, encourage responsibility for oneself, for one’s partner(s), and for any and all children one brings into the world.
Here are some takeaways from the conversation. There was, in the first instance, a good bit of talk about the disparity of opportunities available to those at different ends of the economic spectrum. Robert Putnam set the tone here, alluding to evidence from his recent book that our poor kids get much less support and have much less to which to look forward than do their wealthy counterparts:
[Y]ou can see it in measures of family stability. You can see it in measures of the investments that parents are able to make in their kids, the investments of money and the investments of time. You can see it in the quality of schools kids go to. You can see it in the character of the social and community support that kids — rich kids and poor kids are getting from their communities.
The President responded to this opening by referring to an idealized portrait of community that Putnam draws in the book, one where, despite class differences, everyone shares in the same social and public institutions:
[W]hen I read Bob’s book, the first thing that strikes you is when he’s growing up in Ohio, he’s in a community where the banker is living in reasonable proximity to the janitor at the school. The janitor’s daughter may be going out with the banker’s son. There are a set of common institutions — they may attend the same church; they may be members of the same rotary club; they may be active at the same parks — and all the things that stitch them together. And that is all contributing to social mobility and to a sense of possibility and opportunity for all kids in that community.
Perhaps that was true in some ethnically and religiously homogeneous small towns and urban neighborhoods—Alan Ehrenhalt’s The Lost City is eloquent on this subject—but I have my doubts about it as a sweeping generalization. While, for example, private schools did not proliferate until the 1960s, they have long been available to Roman Catholics (as an alternative to the erstwhile weak-tea Protestantism of the public schools) and to the very wealthy (think Phillips Exeter, Andover, and Choate in the Northeast, as well as Westminster and Woodward here in Atlanta). And anyone who has lived in the South would know that there at least once was a socioeconomic pecking order among Protestant churches, with an enormous contrast between, say, the up-market Episcopalians and the down-market Primitive Baptists. (Indeed, if anything, the decline of the mainline churches and the rise of evangelicalism have served to counteract this phenomenon, so that a much broader socioeconomic spectrum is represented in the pews in many churches on any given Sunday).
Nevertheless, there are three ways community thus conceived can arguably promote social mobility. There are, first of all, the cultural norms of hard work and personal responsibility that can be shared across class boundaries. In this respect, so-called positive role models are not distant abstractions, but personal acquaintances. Peer pressure doesn’t come from (or only from) local gang members but—one hopes—from high-achieving classmates and neighbors. Second, the networks of opportunity readily available to the affluent become open to classmates and acquaintances who don’t have access to them on their own. Finally, because everyone participates in these public institutions, everyone cares about their continued vitality. Thus, for example, parents get involved in PTA’s, care about school board elections, and are active in promoting “investments” (one of the President’s favorite words) in public education. In the Georgetown conversation, we hear something about the last two considerations, but very little (and in any event not enough) about the first.
But if this talk about community isn’t simply to be a nostalgic reminiscence about or longing for something we’ve lost, it behooves us to ask what, practically, we can do to restore it (or preserve it where it still exists).
It would, for example, be impossible—not to say highly undesirable—to compel everyone to attend public schools. While I could imagine some political leaders succumbing to that temptation and trying to regulate private schools out of existence, to the degree that education remains primarily a state and local responsibility, I can’t imagine such a policy sweeping the nation. And even if—horror of horrors—private options were taken off the table, people have historically voted with their feet, exercising “school choice” by moving into a neighborhood whose public schools are attractive. Political efforts to negate the effects of private residential choices haven’t found favor with voters or, for that matter, with the Supreme Court.
This is where, I humbly submit, school choice programs that empower especially lower income people to place their children in better schools actually show some promise of making the aforementioned benefits of community available. Children can escape an essentially homogeneous peer culture that is inimical to achievement and move into schools where parents are involved and there are positive role models. Too bad the President and his party consistently oppose school choice, preferring all too often simply to demand more funding for public schools, as if government by itself can compensate for the social ills that inevitably accompany dysfunctional communities.
A similar statism is implicit in the President’s comments about the role of religion in dealing with the problem of poverty. Here’s what he said:
[W]hen I think about my own Christian faith and my obligations, it is important for me to do what I can myself — individually mentoring young people, or making charitable donations, or in some ways impacting whatever circles and influence I have. But I also think it’s important to have a voice in the larger debate. And I think it would be powerful for our faith-based organizations to speak out on this in a more forceful fashion.
This may sound self-interested because there have been — these are areas where I agree with the evangelical community and faith-based groups, and then there are issues where we have had disagreements around reproductive issues, or same-sex marriage, or what have you. And so maybe it appears advantageous for me to want to focus on these issues of poverty, and not as much on these other issues….
There is great caring and great concern, but when it comes to what are you really going to the mat for, what’s the defining issue, when you’re talking in your congregations, what’s the thing that is really going to capture the essence of who we are as Christians, or as Catholics, or what have you, that this is oftentimes viewed as a “nice to have” relative to an issue like abortion. That’s not across the board, but there sometimes has been that view, and certainly that’s how it’s perceived in our political circles.
While President Obama didn’t go as far as Robert Putnam in mischaracterizing the relative weight of religious emphasis on poverty as opposed to social issues, these remarks do imply that, in his view, social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage play a distractingly large role in the outward-looking role of all too many Christian churches. He does hedge and qualify his statement a bit, but the larger point is that, so far as “our political circles” are concerned, the church’s witness on poverty takes a back seat to its positions on abortion and same-sex marriage. As many have pointed out, this is simply mistaken, but it reveals something about what sorts of actions matter to the President. Furthermore, I’ve argued elsewhere that the President’s principal interest in faith-based groups seems to be mobilizing public support for government action, rather than encouraging their activity as an alternative or supplement to government. He doesn’t see—or at least doesn’t want to highlight—what churches and other faith-based organizations can do as actors in civil society, as possible alternatives to government action. We aren’t supposed to help ourselves or help one another but through the instrumentality of the government. The national conversation on poverty should largely be devoted to what government can do.
I’d like to conclude with a reflection on perhaps President Obama’s most solid contribution to the conversation:
[W]e can all stipulate that the best antipoverty program is a job, which confers not just income, but structure and dignity and a sense of connection to community. Which means we have to spend time thinking about the macro-economy, the broader economy as a whole.
He’s right in every facet of his statement. Having a job is not just about the income, but also about the self-discipline that comes from having to meet obligations to employers, customers, and clients and the dignity that comes from being able to take care of oneself and one’s family. And these relationships are the backbone of every community. I do not mean hereby to deprecate the institutions of civil society—churches, neighborhood associations, and so on—but they don’t prosper without the dignified contributions (both personal and financial) of more or less self-reliant individuals.
While it is clear that our economy hasn’t in recent years generated enough good jobs to lift our least fortunate brothers and sisters out of poverty, I found little in President Obama’s remarks that gave me much confidence that he held the key to success in this regard. We can’t redistribute our way to a better future, so a simple—almost demagogic—focus on inequality won’t do. As Arthur Brooks argued—frequently and effectively, in my view—there is no substitute for a dynamic and productive economy as a generator of wealth. And, as he also argued, ensuring that everyone benefits requires making hard choices that our political classes haven’t demonstrated their willingness to make.
Perhaps conversations like the one that took place last week will provide an opening for further, deeper exchanges of views and for genuinely productive policy-making. But I’m sad to say that I’m not holding my breath.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | May 8, 2015
A week ago today the city of Baltimore was set ablaze by its own citizens. The media storm following the protests and riots is the latest in a string of events that continue to orient our attention as a society to the lack of economic and social opportunity in America
David Brooks, an Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times, wrote an excellent piece on “The Nature of Poverty” a week ago. Brooks draws attention to the importance of the social dynamics that undercut attempts to improve the conditions of urban poor through increased spending and policy solutions.
What Brooks notes in his article, and many others recognize, is that when dealing with poverty, one must deal with the causes of poverty and the psychological and developmental effects of poverty. One-size-fits-all programs fail to do justice to the ways in which individual circumstances vary. Some people have short-term needs – such as gas to get to work – while others need more structured and long-term oriented assistance – such as acquiring the skills necessary to compete in a very competitive job market. This requires panoply of social programs specifically targeted to lift people out of poverty for good.
A safety net in good working order is crucial to a healthy economy, but poor families don’t just need help – they need the right kind of help. Giving people money really does make them better off. Yes, it’s better to have more money to buy groceries and other basic necessities, but improving inequality through handouts has no consistent correlation with upward mobility.
Baltimore is the perfect example of the fact that getting more money from the government doesn’t really make you less poor, and a testament to the fact that poverty is enabled to linger through the impoverishment of our social relations.
Click here to read Brooks’ article.
Image Credit: Carol M. Highsmith’s America, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Row Houses, Baltimore, Maryland.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Apr 28, 2015
A recent AJC front-page story detailed the results of an in-depth investigation of how Georgia’s colleges and universities handle allegations of sexual assault. Here’s the takeaway, as summarized in the article:
A three-month AJC investigation into the secretive world of campus tribunals found that Georgia’s largest universities are pursuing cases that prosecutors won’t touch, offering some accountability for a serious category of student misconduct. But the newspaper also found that campus justice comes with steep trade-offs.
Procedures vary widely and are often poorly understood by both the accused and the accuser. Students, and sometimes their parents, expect the strict rules of a court of law, but instead encounter a looser system where cross-examining witnesses is sharply curtailed and the burden of proof is far lower.
Several students…claim the proceedings in place are deeply flawed and violated their rights to due process. While they haven’t gone to jail, an expulsion, or even suspension, can have dire and long-lasting consequences.
Sexual misconduct on campus is a very real problem, but so is the way colleges and universities, not just in Georgia, but across the nation, are handling it.
A little background is in order here. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights issued a letter indicating that the hostile environment standard heretofore applicable in sexual harassment cases would be extended to sexual misconduct on campus. Here’s the part of the long letter most relevant for our purposes:
In some cases, the conduct may constitute both sexual harassment under Title IX and criminal activity. Police investigations may be useful for fact-gathering; but because the standards for criminal investigations are different, police investigations or reports are not determinative of whether sexual harassment or violence violates Title IX. Conduct may constitute unlawful sexual harassment under Title IX even if the police do not have sufficient evidence of a criminal violation. In addition, a criminal investigation into allegations of sexual violence does not relieve the school of its duty under Title IX to resolve complaints promptly and equitably.
I’ve highlighted the words that lead colleges and universities into a legal thicket where they have to establish procedures for holding students accountable that don’t necessarily contain the sorts of safeguards for the rights of the accused with which we’re familiar from criminal law.
Many legal experts have found problems with the procedures established in response to this letter. For example, professors from two Ivy League law schools—Penn and Harvard—have raised questions about their university’s (undue) processes. Neither school is exactly a bastion of conservatism and the signatories include some stalwarts of the liberal legal establishment
The AJC article closes with the trade-off Georgia’s colleges and universities face:
Stephanos Bibas, a former federal prosecutor and professor of law and criminology at the University of Pennsylvania, said schools are trapped between competing forces, each of which brings great risk.
“Currently there are dozens of accused, almost all men, suing colleges, and colleges feel like they are whipsawed either way, and there are billions of federal dollars — grants, scholarship dollars — on the line. I think they feel they will get sued whichever way they go,” Bibas said.
They seem to be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
I’ll leave to the legal experts to craft a fair policy to deal with sexual, but not quite criminal, misconduct on campus. I speak here as someone who has spent more than forty years on college campuses as a student and professor, and as the father of two children, one a college freshman and the other a high school junior. To my mind, there are two problems that the lawyers and student affairs professionals are trying to clean up. The first is the overwhelmingly pervasive presence of alcohol on campus. Everyone has access to it and all too many of them abuse it. Alcohol disinhibits young men and women who would otherwise shy away from the so-called hook-up culture. And it impairs their judgment when they find themselves at close quarters. While I’m dubious of the claim that one in five college women are victims of sexual assault, I have no doubt at all that almost all the cases that fall short of genuine criminality involve the inebriation of all the parties involved.
The second is the hook-up culture itself, based upon the understanding that sex is all about pleasure, not intimacy and procreation. Parents who try to inculcate in their children a traditional understanding of sexual morality are fighting against a strong cultural current, purveyed not just in television, movies, and music, but also in the law that has made marriage itself mostly about adult happiness and personal fulfillment.
But heaven help the educational leader that makes an argument like this. Late last year, Eckerd College President Donald Eastman III sent this message in an email to students:
“Virtue in the area of sexuality is its own reward, and has been held in high esteem in Western Culture for millennia because those who are virtuous are happier as well as healthier,” Eastman wrote to Eckerd’s 1,800 undergraduate students. “No one’s culture or character or understanding is improved by casual sex, and the physical and psychological risks to both genders are profound.”
Eastman, 69, suggested students drink less alcohol because “you know that these incidents are almost always preceded by consumption, often heavy consumption, of alcohol, often by everyone involved in them.”
While I can imagine that many parents were applauding him from the sidelines, the on-campus response was swift and mostly vitriolic.
Our problem is largely one of moral culture, that is to say, it’s an issue of character and character formation. Laws, formal rules, and procedures have a part to play in forming character, but they are blunt instruments, sadly unequal to the task of raising young men and women capable of forming and upholding the intimate bonds necessary for healthy families. When we make a mess of raising our children—as the evidence from campus life suggests we all too often have—we are driven back to these blunt instruments, whose limitations the AJC story makes all too clear.
As a professor, I feel bad for my students. As a parent, I fear for my children.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Apr 24, 2015
Today, poor children in America have a limited shot at moving up the economic ladder into the middle or upper class. A study in 2012 by the Pew Charitable Trust shows that “[t]hose born at the top and bottom of the income ladder are likely to stay there as adults.” Further, “More than 40 percent of Americans raised in the bottom quintile of the family income ladder remain stuck there as adults, and 70 percent remain below the middle.”
In terms of economic mobility, America is losing its identity as the “land of opportunity.”
In January 2014, Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, and Emmanuel Saez, economists from Harvard and Berkeley, released a study with interesting insights regarding this issue of upward mobility. Their study explores community characteristics that foster upward mobility for lower-income children. The study measures two outcomes: absolute mobility, or the way children progress up the income ladder into adulthood, and relative mobility, or the income disparity between children who grew up rich and poor in the same community as they reach adulthood.
The researchers in the study looked at households in “commuting zones,” or what are basically metropolitan areas, in order to compare the economic mobility of children in various communities. Interestingly, they found that kids who grow up in certain metropolitan areas are far more likely to climb into the top two-fifths of American household income distribution than kids from families with the same relative income from other metropolitan areas. This led them to look into what the specific community factors are that foster opportunity. Their research reveals some very telling patterns:
1. Family Structure
The single most important factor in communities that foster economic mobility is family structure. Chetty et al. found that children raised in communities with high percentages of single mothers are significantly less likely to achieve both absolute and relative mobility. As such, “[c]hildren of married parents…have higher rates of upward mobility if they live in communities with fewer single parents.”
What makes this finding particularly significant is that this is the first major study showing that rates of single parenthood at the community level are linked to children’s economic prospects over the course of their lives. Previous research has shown that children raised by two married parents are significantly more likely to climb the income ladder, but this is the first serious study to show that lower-income kids from both single and married-parent families are more likely to flourish if they are in a community with high shares of two-parent families.
2. Racial & Economic Segregation
Second, they found that children raised in communities that are racially and economically segregated – that is, communities that cluster lots of poor kids together – are less likely to achieve economic mobility. In fact, segregation and family structure are the only two community characteristics that had a consistent correlation with upward mobility in their study.
It is helpful to think of racial and economic segregation as isolation – that is marginalization from both the mainstream economy and the norms that allow middle-income people to flourish. These norms are often contagions that go unnoticed and unmentioned in middle-to-upper-class communities. What is missing for so many children stuck in cycles of poverty is social inclusion, which overlaps with the third factor.
3. Social Capital
Social Capital often goes unmentioned in conversations about economic mobility because it is so difficult to capture in social-scientific terms. Moreover, social capital highlights how complex and connected poverty is because it cannot be separated out from other community factors. The methodology of social scientists encourages that complex problems be broken down into distinct elements to make it easier to analyze and tweak through targeted programs. But to address the problem of social capital is to enter into the complexity of poverty and see how approaches that ignore social capital actually rob disadvantaged groups of the coherence of their experience.
Here is why social capital is so important: You could have two people with exactly the same income who actually live very different lives based on the different social networks they have. For some, achieving upward mobility is a perfectly compatible, even expected, progression within their networks and lifelong relationships. Being a part of their family and maintaining strong relationships with loved ones basically means moving up the economic and social ladder. When hard times hit, they have the support structure they need to get back on their feet. For others, achieving upward mobility means separating themselves from family and loved ones, which may cause them to lack the connections and support they need to withstand an economic crisis.
The breakdown of the social bonds in American communities actually hurts the poor the most. Many people talk about inequality, but this study shows that the problem is not inequality but a lack of economic and social inclusion. Social capital is intertwined with family structure since adults in two-parent families have a much easier time devoting themselves to the kinds of activities that build social capital in a neighborhood. Social capital is also closely correlated to access to quality schools, which leads to the fourth community factor that fosters upward mobility.
4. Access to Quality Schools
Though it is certainly not a new finding, Chetty and his colleagues found that poor kids are far more likely to succeed if they have access to high quality education. Though the study does not mention the need for school choice, it is clearly a necessity by the fact that too many schools are providing a poor education to children who have no other options available to them.
GCO believes that the best and most effective way to provide access to high quality education for children from low-income households is through a variety of school choice initiatives, particularly Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) and Tuition Tax Credit Programs. Throwing more money at failing schools that lack competition and the ability to innovate is not the solution.
Conclusion
The study by Chetty et al. has a lot of other interesting findings worthy of consideration, but the four community characteristics that have been mentioned – two-parent families, racial and economic integration, social capital, and access to quality schools – are the ones with the strongest and most consistent correlation with upward mobility. These factors help to set those cloistered and marginalized from mainstream norms on a pathway to opportunity.
At GCO, we are committed to addressing limited social mobility in Georgia. We seek to identify barriers to opportunity and promote legislative, policy, and community solutions that allow people to achieve middle class by middle age. Our hope is that Georgia and America at large will once again become a “land of opportunity” for all people.
by Kimberly Sawatka | Dec 3, 2014
For many, December is a much awaited time of the year. While the holidays can issue in a frenzy of shopping and preparations, extended time away from school and work provide the prefect opportunity to relax and catch up with loved ones. Beyond the presents that may be given or the lights that may decorate our homes, fellowship with family, friends, and neighbors is what renews us during the holidays.
For me, the holidays have always been a time of celebration shared between the generations of my family. As a child I looked forward to going to my great-grandmother’s house. Preparing for the yearly family gathering, I would watch her whip up marvelous holiday delights. I would listen to her stories about Christmas when she was a girl. Once aunts, uncles, and cousins arrived, I loved the hum of the house filled with conversation and holiday cheer. It is the traditions shared with me in my youth that I still look forward to as an adult.
Keeping in mind what makes the season bright for you and finding fun ways to share time with others will surely make this the most meaningful and memorable holiday yet.
5 Activities to Try This Holiday Season
- Family book club: This year, select a book for the whole family to read over the holiday. Meeting weekly to discuss the plot, character development, and personal feelings about the story will not only help bring everyone together, but also help the kids (and adults!) keep their reading and critical thinking skills sharp over the break. Time spent discussing readings with family is also a special way to learn new things about each other.
- Holiday letter-writing: Nothing brightens a person’s spirits like receiving a hand written letter. Share season’s greetings by sending warm holiday messages to your neighbors, friends, or family members. Additionally, have the kids handwrite a letter to Santa Claus, send thank you cards for gifts received, or keep a holiday journal. These are all great ways to practice writing skills over the break.
- Christmas Caroling: Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a caroler in years! However, nothing makes me happier than to join-in (albeit off key) songs like Silent Night and the Twelve Days of Christmas. Revive the holiday tradition this year by starting a caroling circle of your own.
- Community service: Because the holidays are not only about what we receive, but what we give back, experiences such as working at a local food bank or collecting donations for less fortunate families provide the opportunity to build a stronger sense of community. Embrace the spirit of the holidays through volunteer work.
- Start a new tradition: Traditions provide a sense of closeness with your family and inclusion in a wider community, both contributing to developing a positive self-identity. This year I am happily starting a new holiday tradition with my siblings. Since Christmas is now one of the rare occasions we are all home together, we decided to make each other ornaments for our Christmas trees. Find a new family activity that will allow you to learn from and about those close to you.
This holiday season don’t just catch up on your Netflix list. Whether getting out to ice skate, reading in front of the fire, or helping a neighbor out, make this a meaningful time by celebrating what matter the most: love shared and good will exhibited.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Jul 24, 2014
This is the sixth entry in a series of posts highlighting GCO’s new report – Increasing Access to Quality Healthcare for Low-Income Uninsured Georgians. The first entry provided an overview of the report, the second looked at Georgia’s healthcare safety net, the third explained the impact of uninsurance, the fourth focused on Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, and the fifth highlighted challenges to expanding access to healthcare.
While there are significant challenges to providing low-income uninsured Georgians with quality healthcare, there are cost-efficient, state-based solutions Georgia can implement in the short-term that can positively impact health outcomes for Georgians in the coverage gap.
Provide State Government Support for Georgia’s Charity Clinics
The state’s 96 clinics served more than 183,000 unique patients and saved the state over $200 million in 2012 while not receiving any state funding. However, other state governments do financially support their charity clinics. Virginia provides $3.5 million to its 53 clinics; Ohio gives $435,000 for 46 clinics; West Virginia provides $4.3 million to 11 clinics; and South Carolina recently approved $2 million for 51 clinics.[i]
The state’s existing charity clinics have the capacity to serve more patients, but funding and unnecessary state restrictions limit their ability to meet their full potential. The Georgia Charitable Care Network requested a $2 million appropriation from the Georgia legislature in 2014.[ii] Since clinics’ can provide $7 worth of services for every $1 spent, this relatively small amount of government funding would allow clinics to be open more hours and serve an estimated 100,000 additional patients.[iii] With the increase in funds, the expansion in capacity could take place at many clinics with little delay, providing much needed care to Georgia’s most vulnerable citizens. However, funding for Georgia’s charity clinics was not included in the state’s FY 2015 budget.
While a $2 million appropriation would allow Georgia’s current clinics to serve more patients, over 40 percent of counties do not have a charity clinic. A larger appropriation would allow for the Georgia Charitable Care Network to help underserved communities open new clinics. Since many rural areas have limited access to care, new clinics could have a significant impact on communities across the state.
In 2015, the state should provide $10 million in funding to support the dramatic expansion of current clinics and the creation of new ones in underserved communities. Compared to the $2.1 billion cost of Medicaid expansion over ten years, this appropriation is affordable for the state and sustainable in the long-term while still expanding access to quality healthcare to a significant portion of the state’s low-income uninsured population.
Expand Telemedicine into Charity Clinics
Telemedicine is the provision of care through real-time interactive communication between the patient and provider from one site to another via electronic communications. The electronic communication – which usually includes at least video and audio – allows a provider to care for a patient at a different location. Telemedicine can be used to provide primary and specialty care, remote patient monitoring, and medical education. Care through telemedicine can take place at hospitals, clinics, community health centers, nursing homes, and schools.[iv]
Telemedicine has improved access to care for many individuals – especially those in rural areas that have a physician shortage – because instead of traveling across the state to see a provider, a patient can go to a local clinic or hospital and be connected with a provider located anywhere in the state. Telemedicine has been shown to reduce the cost of healthcare and increase efficiency through better management of chronic diseases, reduced travel times, shared health professional staffing, and fewer or shorter hospital stays.[v]
Georgia has one of the most robust and developed telemedicine networks in the country, but Georgia’s charity clinics are not currently using telemedicine. Utilizing telemedicine in the clinics would enhance their ability to deliver services. Setting up telemedicine presentation sites in charity clinics would allow providers to volunteer their time at clinics across the state without leaving their office. This would be especially beneficial to individuals who live in rural areas and often do not have access to specialty care.
Charity clinics currently do not have the capital to purchase the technology and infrastructure required for telemedicine, which is relatively inexpensive given the benefit it provides.[vi] The Georgia legislature should include funding to pilot the use of telemedicine in its charity clinic appropriation.
Modernize Nurse Practitioner Laws and Regulations
Many nurse practitioners and other mid-level providers deliver care to patients at charity clinics as employees or volunteers. However, the ability of NPs to provide care is limited by Georgia’s restrictive laws and regulations.
Georgia should join the one-third of states that provide full practice authority to NPs. By implementing the licensing model recommended by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and the Institute of Medicine, NPs will be able to provide the high level of care that they are educated and prepared to provide at charity clinics and other healthcare facilities across the state.[vii]
While many physician associations have opposed these reforms, a 2012 study found no evidence of differences in primary care physician earnings between states that provide NPs with full practice authority and those that maintain practice barriers.[viii] Since the literature on NPs finds no reason to be concerned with the quality of care provided by NPs and it should not impact Georgia’s physicians’ earnings, there is little to no reason for the state to continue to limit the care NPs can provide.
Reinstate Sales Tax Exemption for Charity Clinics
Many healthcare providers are exempt from the payment of Georgia’s sales and use tax, including licensed nonprofit in-patient general hospitals, mental hospitals, nursing homes, and hospices.[ix] From 2008 to 2010, Georgia’s volunteer health clinics were also exempt from Georgia sales tax on medical and office supplies and other purchases.[x]
Given the amount and quality of care charity clinics deliver and the savings this care provides to the state, Georgia should reinstate the sales tax exemption to provide the clinics with more resources to serve individuals in need of care.
Replace the Lost Federal DSH Funds with State Dollars
Many hospitals have expressed concern about the upcoming loss of DSH funds. In 2016, Georgia hospitals will lose an estimated $26 million in federal funds for uncompensated care. The federal funding loss increases to $40 million in 2017 and $111 million in 2018.[xi]
DSH funds are an important source of revenue for many of the state’s hospitals, and the federal reduction could cause some of the hospitals to cut services or completely close. To support this essential component of the state’s safety-net, the state should replace the lost federal funding. Since implementing the above recommendations to support the state’s charity clinics and other state and federal health policies could reduce the amount of uncompensated care provided by hospitals, the state may not need to replace the full amount of lost federal funding. Thus, the state should work with hospitals to identify the amount of uncompensated care they provide and to calculate the amount of state funding needed for hospitals to maintain services.
[i] Georgia Charitable Care Network, “Partners in Georgia’s Safety Net.”
[ii] John Sparks, “Stabilizing the Healthcare Safety Net: A Partnership with Free and Charitable Clinics,” Georgia Charitable Care Network, Presentation to Georgia General Assembly Joint Study Committee on Medicaid Reform, November 18, 2013, video of testimony found at http://www.house.ga.gov/Committees/en-US/MedicaidReform.aspx.
[iii] GCO interview with Donna Lopper, Georgia Charitable Care Network, December 9, 2013.
[vi] GCO interview with Jeffrey Kesler, Georgia Partnership for Telehealth, March 13, 2014.
[xi] Georgia Hospital Association, Hospitals 101, 28.
Page 26 of 27« First«...1020...2324252627»
