#nitec Htate total $10. OXO, O $10, 400, OOO O, O, OOO 318, 201 420, 976 200, 000 216, 009 800, 572 662, 966 358, 513 632, 447 999, 118 200,000 290, 32 $112, 000, 000 3, 147, 338 720, 038 2, 371, 840 4, 007, 188 912, 300 626, 000 540, 009 806, 245 526, 000 525, 000 692, 727 026, 400 336, 400 103, 400 DENT'S HEALTH RECOMMENDATIONS 148, 600 283 if proposed legesluiion is enacted, the basic allol ment formula of the llospital Construction 101 fiscal year 1955: State break down, proposed grants de Stalesin, 1955; answming snacement 3 proposed legislation for programs which will use. Immortint vo tloneli'ition. volonal reabilitation, and maternal anichilib. althan I willare servi*** rnis table presents: bonito, basis of serta ****ntions the Worlact of propose i new borislation covering For...*-1-and for boulth services and incilities Thumpilons are: (1) Tuut thens to be appropriated in 1994 are the kiume Thinsures contain: 1 in this table represent allotant to the state. In the event that any state should not appropriate sufficient funds to match the Federal Hospital construction program 48292-54--pt. 1-19 Alabama See footnotes at end of table. 706, 408 353, 204 62, 681 50,000 70, 455 706, 408 353, 204 62, 681 50,000 70, 455 1, 797, 282 318, 951 420, 976 200,000 215, 009 800, 572 662, 966 358, 513 632, 447 999, 118 200,000 30, 832 3, 947, 338 720, 035 942, 360 525, 000 540, 009 806, 245 525, 000 525, 000 692, 727 524, 400 161, 800 336, 400 193, 400 63,500 Piscal year 1956: State breakdown of proposed grants to Stutes in 1955, assuming enactment of proposed legislation for programs which will use, i proposed legislatum is enacted, the basic allotment formula of the Hospital Construction Act-- Continued *H*I, * * ***** See footnotes at end at tahia, 2N 2 85, 282, 003 704, 1053 870, 21% N43, 167 (), 772. 024 0701,01 1, 100), 170 1, DMI, 10 121 Vocational rehabilitation Vocation ecution. Maternal and ohikl welcro State Support! Becta! projects Total United States total $27, 112, 500 $23, 0, 000 $24,038, 330 $3,000, OXX) $20.00), 000 714, 026 Alabama See footnotes at end of table. 894, 427 5,071 201, X30 238, 090 291, 945 201, 174 1, 471, 878 202, 822 038, 316 70, 723 466), 824 137, 713 980, 750 201, 139 102, 576 07, 708 0.393 3, 408 13, 713 034, 020 403, K3 2005, 773 108, 074 (522, 010 108, 110 (104, 027 16, 202 772, 333 1(K), 707 229, NNO 000), ONE NN, 223 634, 440 74, 106 161, 120 121,337 201, 200 11%, (128 200), 180 1, 201, 600 102, 077 24 M Senator COOPER. I know. Any place in the United States. Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The money would go to a specific project or a case Fan! It is an important facior beans are manier - I am thinking of a situation where, because of the Senator Cooler. Take the next one. Extension and improvement. wie bare, they probably have more advanced proSuppose you had $25 million appropriated by the Congress for that. Then, in a state like Wyoming do you think I understand that the apportionment to the States would still be based funds which would probably result from the on the population formula. - cela would possibly affect the programs which can Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Exactly. - zmed on successfully in those larger States where Senator Cooper. In the States you have a pital facilities, like cancer control? Mr. ROCKEFELLER. A State plan. I think the answer would be "Yes," if there port program based on the equalization formula · "sl Survey and Construction Act. However, that Senator COOPER. Over a 6-year period. The extension and improvement grant is alloMr. ROCKEFELLER. That is correct. But each year there would be basis. Therefore the big States would get more rew money available to the State. Senator COOPER. Now, the support is the one I really wanted to ger population, and that money would be applied inquire about. I do not understand the formula. Assume $65 million their program. So that they will benefit prois appropriated by the Congress for support. The formula is changed 1. because of the larger populations that they from the present formula. Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The formula is changed. ale cortina Senator Cooper. That applies to all of your grant-in-aid prograins. I sempat to your question . Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Secretary will be back tomorrow recom Sierrain it mending or supporting legislation on vocational rehabilitation, and you will find the same formula recommended there. V? Senator COOPER. Without going into the details by which you arrived at the apportionment to the State, the theory is that the larger E27 LETR#ila, States now would receive smaller amounts and the poorer States would c. ******* !!!!! receive perhaps larger amounts. Mr. ROCKEFELLER. We did not develop a formula in the Secretary's * memuda wote , *. office. This was a formula which, I think, one of your committee members is importantly responsible for having developed, Senator *** Hill. It is a formula on which I know Senator Taft spent a great deal of time. It is apparently the formula which the States feel T* across the board most effectively reflects what is sometimes called equalization to give special help to those States which have a lower per capita income. Senator Coorer. I am not from a rich State, but supposing you had a State like New York or Massachusetts, one where there are great hospitals and where they have perhaps started great programs in mental health, cancer, and heart disease. This would mean, I assume, that those States would receive smaller sums. Do you think that this would affect the programs which they may have already instituted in such fields? Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think this chart here is the best answer. The matching formula, as it now exists, is two Federal dollars to one State dollar. This is the average Federal contribution to State and local contributions in the 18 States for general health. Therefore, it would be clear that the wealthiest States would be spending far more or a far larger proportion of Federal to State funds than the average. |
0 Reviews Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified Write review |