Catastrophic Cuts to DHHS: Part One

Despite an improving economy, strong state revenues and low unemployment, the majority of the Finance committee of the NH House has proposed $180 million in cuts from current spending levels to the Department of Health and Human Services.  Cuts include $28 million in services to the mentally ill [while we hear “we don’t need gun control, we need more funding for mental health”], $26 million to nursing homes [despite NH facing a “silver tsunami”], $2 million and the proposed 25 beds to the state veterans’ home [thanks for your service],  and $30 million to services to the developmentally disabled.  This is the budget approved by a bipartisan vote in the Republican controlled Senate and Democratically controlled NH House in 2013.

What does all this mean to specific DHHS services and programs?  

The committee majority voted to discontinue funding for Medicaid expansion, which would leave 39,000 newly insured without health care.  Federal funding covers 100 percent of this program for the first three years and 90 percent thereafter.  The rate of NH uninsured at hospitals and health care providers has gone down, more people are accessing preventative and primary care, and health care jobs have increased. This decision also violates the MET agreement and could lead to additional lawsuits.

They voted to cut funding for Meals on Wheels, emergency shelters, homeless shelters, the veterans’ home, prescriptions drug benefits, Service Link, developmental disabilities, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, people with acquired brain disorder, county government,  Crotched Mountain Rehabilitation Center, nursing homes and mental health services.  

They proposed increases in fees for licensing child care providers and sought to remove oversight from DHHS.  Thy proposed higher taxes and fees to Nursing homes, already cut by $26 million, and added another million dollars in new fees for places like Hospice care centers.


According to Finance Division III Chair Neal Kurk, “The Finance Committee is not proposing these cuts lightly,”  but they are needed to balance the budget. Opponents argue that the cuts are “aggressive,” that the actions will “devastate the Medicaid program,” and that these cuts suggest that the state is in an economic crisis, when it’s not.

I am not arguing that no efficiencies can be made in DHHS. But the Republicans on Finance are not looking for efficiencies. They are not voting to fund the state,  lower property taxes, or care for our citizens. They are voting so they can say: “We cut spending” no matter the consequences to the people of NH. 

See next posting for some links on this  topic.