Meeting Public Comments

Names and comments are public records. Remaining information is considered a confidential record.

Comments Submitted:

04-22-2021

Jane Robinette []

The House so far has resisted the Senate's attempt to add asset limits for SNAP recipients and other new eligibility requirements for public assistance in a standalone bill. Now this language has appeared in the Senate's HHS appropriations bill SSB 1267, Div. XIII. I cannot find the latest version of the House bill you are discussing, but I urge the House to reject the Senate's Div. XIII.Instituting limiting asset limits for SNAP recipients will discourage people from applying for SNAP even if they are eligible, and increase administrative costs instead of alleviating hunger and food insecurity. In particular, the one vehicle limit would hamper the ability of the household to obtain workthe very thing that you should want to encourage. The limits would also count college savings accounts for teenagers and discourages savings of any kind. This makes no sense, and would deprive struggling families of food assistance. DHS said that the federal government has been running a pilot project to accomplish the bill's verification goals in five states, and that program will be applied to all the states at the end of the year, AT NO COST TO THE STATES. Why would Iowa want to squander millions of dollars to a thirdparty vendor for something that is already in the works as we speak? DHS is also currently working with Equifax on a free trial program for a year. This bill would waste millions in taxpayer money for little reward.The fiscal note projects millions of dollars in "savings." I see those numbers reflecting thousands of struggling people cut from eligibility due to minimal assets or not being able to respond in a timely manner to notifications, not as finding more "fraud." As a taxpayer, I would much rather the money spent on administering this "oversight" instead go to the DHS and collaborative partners to address underlying issues that cause people to need assistance: jobs and training, wages, housing, transportation, child care, and support. This punitive approach only harms vulnerable people who cannot protect themselves, like children, the disabled, and the elderly who rely on SNAP and other assistance for their lives. At this time when so many Iowans are struggling, this is the wrong way to go.

04-22-2021

Leslie Carpenter [Iowa Mental Health Advocacy]

I cannot find the House version of this bill, but urge the committee to not approve Division XIII of the Senate version. DHS & DIA are already providing oversight and protecting against fraud for public assistance programs. In addition, they plan to use a free program next year, as you know and stated in other comments.The reimbursement rate increases in other sections of the Senate version are good, and I would build in rate increases for ACT (Assertive Community Treatment) providers as well. (They are paid so little that many of our MHDH regions end up having to supplement these rates to keep the providers of these valuable services in business).Given the profits of the MCOs, rate increases across the board for all mental health services, professionals and direct care staff are indicated to help with recruitment and retention in order to build our mental health care services and access in our state.Thank you for consideration.

04-22-2021

Renee Schulte [NAMI Iowa and IMHCA]

Thank you House members for this bill! We appreciate the funding for the DMU project, medical and psychiatric residencies, support for telehealth parity and for removing the income verification piece for food assistance. NAMI Iowa is registering in support of this bill. When the licensing section is amended back to the passed House Version, IMHCA will also support. We will be undecided until that amendment. Thanks again for bringing this bill forward, Chairman Fry!