Our agency has been a dues paying member of AACHP now AHPA since its inception. I hope to be able to continue to support AHPA but we need your help. I additionally request that AHPA consider supplemental funding for bi-state agencies. We do incur additional costs as the following Summary notes: 1. 2. We have had to have extra meetings in Minnesota and Our rural area covers over 27,000 square miles -- we 3. Time/distance costs for my Board are obviously compounded. 4. 5. 6. 7. Review activities have necessitated extra meetings on There is a time loss factor of my minimum staff of five Because of the newness and confusion of the legislation It is imperative to note, that every agency (regardless I appreciate AHPA, and I appreciated your comments at last June's annual meeting. I believe AHPA has the credability to affect congressional decisions. Anything you can do will be appreciated. A. Rural and minimally funded Health Systems Agencies support the concepts country. West Alabama Health Council, Inc. Southeast Alaska Health Systems Agency South Central Health Planning & Development of Anchorage, Alaska Navajo Health Systems Agency Arkansas Health Systems Agency South Arkansas Health Systems Agency North Bay Health Systems Agency of Napa, California Region 9 H.S.A. of Crest Hill, Illinois Illowa Health Systems Agency Health Planning Association of Western Kansas Western Maryland Health Systems Agency Health Planning Council of Eastern Shore, Cambridge, Maryland Merrimack Valley Health Planning Council of Lawrence, Massachusetts Northern Michigan Health Systems Agency Upper Peninsula Health Systems Agency, Marquette, Michigan H.S.A. of Western Lake Superior of Duluth, Minnesota Central Minnesota Health Systems Agency Southeastern Minnesota Health Systems Agency Missouri Area 5 H.S.A. Council B. Southeast Nebraska Health Systems Agency Greater Nevada Health Systems Agency Health Systems Agency of Clark County of Las Vegas, Nevada NY-Penn Health Systems Agency Western North Dakota Health Systems Agency Agassiz Health Planning Council, East Grand Forks, Minnesota Eastern Oregon Health Systems Agency Keystone Health Systems Agency of Altoona, Pennsylvania West Tennessee Health Association Panhandle Health Systems Agency, Amarillo, Texas South Plains Health Systems Agency of Lubbock, Texas West Texas Health Systems Agency, El Paso, Texas Permian Basin Regional Planning Commission of Midland, Texas Southwest Washington Health Systems Agency Central Washington Health Systems Agency Eastern Washington Health Systems Agency Lake Winnebago Area Health Systems Agency of Oshkosh, Wisconsin New Health Systems Agency of Green Bay, Wisconsin North Central Area Health Planning Association of Wausau, Wisconsin Wyoming Health Systems Agency Western Colorado Health Systems Agency In facing the serious challenges of P.L. 93-641, the foregoing group has had to struggle not only with the problems indigenous to their areas, conflicting and confusing Department of Health, Education, and Welfare regulations, performance standards criteria and guidelines, but also a serious and crippling lack of adequate funding. Furthermore, many of these agencies serve sparsely populated and immense geographic areas, often with rugged terrain, adverse weather and limited transportation networks. Congress has mandated enormous responsibilities for all Health Systems Agencies throughout the country, regardless of their size. However, current funding, which is based primarily on a per capita dollar formula, often penalizes smaller agencies in meeting the health needs of their residents. Notwithstanding the challenges faced, these agencies have had notable successes, not only in meeting Federal guidelines and expectations, but also community needs, in the short timeframe of less than two years. A. A listing of activities mandated by Congress which each Health Systems It is apparent from this list of activities that the responsibilities resources. Results of a survey recently taken with respect to the needs of these agencies in meeting the above standards have clearly indicated that, under current funding levels, most of these agencies do not have more than five professional and two clerical staff. The Bureau of Health Planning and Resources Development (BHPRD) currently requires agencies to maintain records and activities in seven distinct functional areas: Agency Management Plan Development Plan Implementation/Project Review Plan Implementation/Resources Development Data Management Coordination Public Involvement L Most agencies surveyed estimate that, in order to adequately meet current expectations, a minimum or average of one staff member per function is a prerequisite. Further, many feel that additional staff is necessary to comply with local needs and demands. B. It should be noted that Congress has established a minimal funding level of $175,000 in P.L. 93-641 to accomplish all of these tasks. Unfortunately, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare intrepretation has, for The group asked that the minimal Federal funding level be at least 70¢ needs caused by large geographic areas and/or sparse or widely distributed population, energy, or other growth impacts, multiple jurisdictions such as two state agencies or SHCCS, and other problems. The agencies presenting this testimony extemd across the Nation, North and South, East and West. Many face, as previously indicated, enormous distances, sparse population, difficult terrain, and significant adverse weather conditions Public Law 93-641 demands public involvement of consumers and providers who are residents of the area in planning for ther health. For issues to be discussed and resolved in a democratic manner, adequate provision must be made for insuring participation, involvement, and accountability by and with health service area residents. From the survey, many of the small agencies spend in excess of 10% of their total budgets in Board, Committee and Staff Travel. (Add Examples) |