Fiscal year 1955: State breakdown of proposed grants to States in 1956, assuming enactment of proposed legislation for programs which will use, if proposed legislation is enacted, the basic allotment formula of the Hospital Construction Act 48293~-54—pt. 1-19 Alabarna See footnotes at end of table. 706, 408 363, 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 2, 191, 692, 727 524, 400 336, 400 193, 400 63, 500 Fiscal year 1955: State breakdown of proposed grants to States in 1955, assuming enactment of proposed legislation for programs which will use, is proposed legislation is enacted, the basic allotment formula of the Hospital Construction Act-Continued United States total. See footnotes at end of table. 894, 427 901, 830 238, 090 291, 645 201, 174 $23,000,000 714, 625 141, 597 455, 223 202, 822 638, 345 76, 723 456, 824 137, 713 980, 756 261, 139 102, 575 $163,990, 618 5, 282, 095 765, 463 870, 218 843, 157 657, 565 751, 086 957, 265 890, 793 27.0 Fiscal year 1955: State breakdown of proposed grants to states in 199.55, 4x8uming enactment of proposed legislation for programs which will 18€, is proposed legislation is enacted, the basic allotment formula of the Hospital Construction Act Continued South Carolina 10, 288 Veriorat 231, 303 5, 133 226, NO 536, 702 99, 050 773, 110 I, 183, 3086 121, 486 81, 899 46, 662 576,990 834, 715 1, 338, 197 135, 426 88, 935 465, 085 076, 0.14 165, 983 3,902, 023 932. 553 747, 329 703, 238 939, 549 269, 080 4, 817.001 982, 521 578,582 23. 4 I It is assumed that these programs, recommended by the President, will become effec- Tentative allotments based upon 1955 budget estimate under title VI of the Public Estiinated allo stion bis Ton amounts for allotment grants to States included in 1955 Budget of the Unite 1 States and conputed on basis of current formulae. • Ercludes $2.887,500 “reserve fund B" for allotments for special projects, contained in 1955 Budget of the United States under present title V of the Social Security Act, as 5 Assumes $3 million special project grant distributed on basis of population for "sub- * Includes $7,138,330 permanent appropriation under Smith-Hughes Act, and 5 Senator PURTELL. I thought that might be along the line you were talking about, Senator. Senator COOPER. I have one other question. I know most poor States are always looking for money and searching for money. Do you think there is any danger in this in that there is any tendency to channel too large a percentage of support into these poor States, or could they do it without the approval of the Department? Secretary Hobby. It would depend on the level of the appropriation, Senator Cooper. The level in support and in extension and improvement, and in special projects. Senator COOPER. That is the tendency for local governments to get some of their operating costs on somebody else's back. Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think the Secretary's point is very important. The State really has no say over how much it gets in support grants, because the Congress will determine what funds will be allocated to that phase of the three-part grant program. Then the money would be divided according to the Hill-Burton formula, so that it would go to them and they would get their share automatically. Senator COOPER. Take that list with Public Health on it. Would there be a possibility within the State of making a plan within the State? For example, to channel its funds more into its operating costs, let us say, perhaps under general health, than it would be in the programs which you have termed categorical? Let us say in research, perhaps? Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That would really be up to the State health officer to determine, I suppose, working with the governor and the county health people. Senator COOPER. It is a great temptation, though, to get rid of some of those operating costs. Would you all have any control or possibility of reviewing those programs Secretary Hobby. I will let Dr. Scheele answer that particularly; but he does review the State plan. I would like him to simplify that. Dr. SCHEELE. The States would be required to submit their plans for approval. I believe our working relationship with them is such that we could talk with them on a friendly basis and avoid that very situation happening Senator COOPER. You recognize there is always that possibility. Dr. SCHEELE. Yes, sir. This has always been a problem and it is a problem today. We have $10 million in the general-assistance grant, and they can do it with that money today. So this is not new, but it is an old problem. We found them very good about not using that money just to cover up certain administrative expenses they wanted to relieve State funds from, and also in the budgets in TB and venereal disease and mental health. The white parts of the bars on this chart show they have been interested in getting State and local money into those special programs. I think there is some evidence. Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is overmatching. Dr. SCHEELE. That is right. They are actually overmatching and just won't use the Federal grant to cover those programs which are not going to add very much to public health. Senator Cooper. The reason why I asked that is for this reason: Someone is going to testify later on this. It is the statement for the |
0 Reviews Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified Write review |