277 So what you really have in your general health programs and to rtain degree in the categorical is that in many cases the Federal rey only represents 1 percent of their total expenditures, so that ecomes a very small factor really in the big States as far as the is concerned. It is an important factor because any money portant these days, but it is a relatively small factor. However, point apport Senator COOPER. I am thinking of a situation where, because of the Facilities those States have, they probably have more advanced prorams in those fields. Then, in a State like Wyoming do you think cutting of their funds which would probably result from the hange of this formula would possibly affect the programs which can perhaps only be carried on successfully in those larger States where have better hospital facilities, like cancer control? Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think the answer would be "Yes," if there ould be only a support program based on the equalization formula found in the Hospital Survey and Construction Act. However, that s only a part of it. The extension and improvement grant is alloated on a population basis. Therefore the big States would get more money because of larger population, and that money would be applied for the improvement of their program. So that they will benefit proportionately more here because of the larger populations that they hare. That will create a balance. Senator COOPER. It will correct inequities? Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is correct. So the answer to your question is that the new formula would not adversely affect it. Senator COOPER. I have another question. Secretary HOBBY. May I add one thought there, Senator? Senator COOPER. Yes. Secretary HOBBY. In the application of the Hill-Burton formula, in the Hospital Survey and Construction Act our experience demonstrates that these so-called rich States were not deterred in their hos pital construction. In the States with lesser fiscal capacities, however, the programs were greatly helped. That has been the experience in hospital construction as among the States. Senator PURTELL. Mrs. Secretary, may I say-and this may be helpful to Senator Cooper, although I am not sure that it will be but it may be if I asked this question now: Is it not true in the long run, and in the overall picture, that every State will be better off finan cially, that is, the financial participation will be greater than it is today? Also have you some figures that will demonstrate that so that we can include them in the record! I believe you do have some. We have one set of figures which I received from your Department, and I think we ought to have it in the record. Secretary HOBBY. Could we whit that for the record! Senator PURTELL Yes. I am sure it out de a se p and it * be included, if there is no objection. I save one nere ato boat in hum reason why I mentioned it. (The document referred to is as folloren DEPARTMENT OF HEALTE. ELMATT. 1:1 bun *** NOTE-The 87tarted taking have been grand to the T42 President's recoat on a tester nal, and child health, and welfare services. The explanatory notes indicate the assumptions which have been made in the preparation of the tables. The budget levels for fiscal year 1955 have been used, for purposes of comparison, in the 1956 table. It should be particularly noted that the second table, labeled “Projected Impact of Legislative Recommendations-Fiscal Year 1956," is not intended to be a prediction of the budget recommendations of the President for fiscal year 1956 except in the case of vocational rehabilitation. The levels of appropriations in fiscal year 1956 will be determined through the regular budget process in the light of all circumstances existing at the time of the budget recommendation. The maximum authorizations for the five programs as proposed in the bills to carry out the President's recommendations are as follows: Hospital construction___ Public health services Maternal and child health and welfare.. Vocational rehabilitation__. Vocational education 1 No limit. $210, 000, 000 36, 000, 000 Projected impact of legislative recommendations, pscal year 1956 Federal grants to States for health services and facilities, vocational educators, Pocational rehabilitation, and maternal and child health and welfare services (covers 5 programs which will use, if proposed legislation in enacted, the basic allotment formula of the Hospital Construction Act) Important: This table presents, upon the basis of certain assumptions, the fiscal effect of proposed new legislation covering Federal grants-in-aid for health sea vices and facilities. vocational education, vocational rehabilitation, and maternal and child beelth and welfare services. The assumptions are: 1. That the sums to be appropriated In 1956 are the 2. That the President's legiintive recommendations will be enacted and effective on the dates indiented in the appro same as those contained in the President's budge: for 1955. 3. That the appropriations for each program in 1956 will be the same as the assumed appropriations for 1955, with the exception of "Surveys for hospital con? priate footnotes. struction" and "Vocational rehabilitation." (The hospital survey money is a nonrecurring appropriation for 1955. The vocational rehabilitation figures for 1956 reflect the Prestdent's recommendation that the funds for this program be markedly increased during the next several years.) The figures contained in this table represent allotments to the La the event that any State should not appropriate sufficient funds to match the Federal allotments in accordance with the proposed formulas, the full allotment would Since the actual 1956 figures will be determined through the budget and appropriations process in 1956, the 1956 figures presented in this table are States. not be available to the State. purely hypothetical and are only for the purpose of indicating the approximate effect of the proposed new legislation. Support Extension Total 1 |