Michigan: Michigan House of Representatives, District 57

Candidates

Fred Gallagher, Republican
Doug Spade, Democrat

Issues: Prescription Drugs | Long-Term Care | Do Not Call Legislation |

The issue boxes contained on this page are not clickable online. Please print the page and make notes for your reference.

Question

Would you support or oppose making the EPIC program available to everyone who meets the income eligibility requirements, even if it meant delaying a reduction in state taxes? Would you support or oppose increasing funding to the EPIC program? Would you support or oppose increasing tobacco settlement revenue support to EPIC?

AARP Response

Prescription drugs have become an increasingly important part of health care. Modern pharmacy provides ongoing treatments for conditions such as stroke, heart disease, mental illness, nausea associated with chemotherapy, and asthma. The importance of prescription drugs has led to increased efforts, both public and private, to expand access to pharmaceutical treatments while containing costs.

In 2001, Michigan introduced the Elderly Prescription Insurance Coverage or EPIC program to help low-income older residents pay for their prescription costs. EPIC is a drug discount program with a $25 enrollment fee. Currently, the EPIC program lacks the appropriate funds to serve everyone who meets the eligibility requirements.

AARP supports increasing state funding of the EPIC program.

Issue	Yes	No	Unclear
Supports increased state funding for EPIC
Supports open enrollment in EPIC
Would allocate more than 15% of Tobacco Settlement Revenues for EPIC

Candidate Response: Fred Gallagher

I would support any reasonable program that would meet the health needs of Michigan’s underprivileged citizens. I will, however, not support any increased tax program to fund it. We cannot forget the needs of struggling families to maintain a reasonable standard of living. We must assure that young families are strong financially so they can to raise their families, educate their children and afford their homes.

It is important to ensure affordable, accessible, quality health care for everyone. The needs of our aging population pertaining to health care and pharmaceutical needs must remain a priority. Health care is an important issue and again no easy or inexpensive answer is in the wings. More pressure on the health care community to bring down prices for pharmaceutical products and healthcare is needed. One of the areas that could be addressed is the epidemic of litigation impacting the cost of everything connected to health care. You can be sure that the trial lawyers will make every effort to block any action taken.

Candidate Response: Doug Spade

I supported the creation of the EPIC program, favor increased accessibility, and would strongly support increasing funding to it. The high cost of prescriptions is one of the complaints I hear most often from seniors I represent, and I have backed several pieces of legislation that would help make these medications more affordable. More tobacco settlement revenue can and should be directed to EPIC so that more people may benefit. It becomes a matter of properly prioritizing the use of state dollars. At the same time, I don’t believe delaying the scheduled tax cuts would result in more money going to EPIC. Many other programs have already undergone significant cuts, and it is my belief that any additional revenue realized by delaying tax cuts would first be directed towards making those programs whole. Sadly, providing affordable prescriptions for all seniors has not been as high a priority as it should be at either the state or federal level.

Question

Would you support or oppose increased funding for programs that expand long-term care services, including home and community-based care options, even if it meant delaying a reduction in state taxes? Over the next 5 years, which one of the following areas of long-term care service delivery should receive significant funding enhancement and why (please choose one): 1) Nursing Homes; 2) Assisted Living Facilities; or 3) Home and Community Base Care Services?

AARP Response

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study indicates that people who are age 65 face at least a 40 percent lifetime risk of entering a nursing home. About 10 percent will stay there for five years or longer.

In Michigan, the challenges of an aging population are especially problematic because those age 85 and older are the fastest growing segment of the population. The 85 and older population will increase by approximately 60 percent over the next quarter century. Half of those 85 and over will need help with the basic activities of daily living and almost as many will suffer from dementia.

AARP supports strong provisions for individuals and families to determine how best to spend resources that will meet their unique long-term care needs. We believe that it is critical to ensure that high quality and affordable choices are available for people who need long-term care services.

Issue	Yes	No	Unclear
Supports making long-term care a priority of the next administration
Supports increased funding for Home and Community Based Care Services
Supports giving consumers the option of managing their own care

Candidate Response: Fred Gallagher

Home and Community based care services will be the areas most needing attention over the next few years. This is the service that makes most sense for our seniors. I have witnessed all types of long term care for the elderly for many family and friends. The care that made them the happiest was in their own home. Of course this is not always possible. As I have already stated, I will not support any program that will increase the tax burden of Michigan citizens. The funds for needed programs can be found by more efficient use of taxpayer’s money. We have always lived within our means as individuals. It is now time for us to place people in government who will do the same.

Candidate Response: Doug Spade

While nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and home and community base care services are all important, the latter is probably the one most in need of increased funding. More "slots" need to be created so more people can benefit from the care they receive while staying in their homes. Nursing home care is very expensive compared to home base care, and most people prefer to remain in their homes as long as possible. Directing dollars to home base care is an effective, efficient use of resources. New legislation, supported by nursing homes, will allow them to draw additional federal dollars to help ease their financial problems. As I explained previously, however, I don’t believe delaying scheduled tax cuts will lead to additional state dollars being dedicated for this purpose. Rather, it is my belief the money would instead be directed to programs that have experienced severe cuts.

Question

What would you do to move the “Do-Not-Call” legislation out of conference committee? Would you support or oppose the establishment of a STATEWIDE “Do-Not-Call” list providing Michigan consumers an option for controlling unsolicited sales calls to their homes?

AARP Response

Do-Not-Call lists allow consumers to avoid telemarketing calls by having their names placed on these lists. Telemarketers are then forbidden to call them. In addition, penalties for violating the requirements of a No Call registry provide consumers with the knowledge that they can take action against any telemarketer that calls in spite of the listing. An April 30, 2001, EPIC/MRA poll indicates that more than 80% of Michigan voters support a Do-Not-Call system to be operated by the state.

Legislation to create a meaningful statewide “Do-Not-Call” list has been in a House/Senate conference committee since December of last year, where telemarketing interests and their allies have been frustrating efforts to pass legislation to stop unsolicited telemarketing calls; 70% of Michigan voters view these calls as intrusive and an invasion of privacy.

AARP supports the establishment of a statewide “Do Not Call” list which will be operable in 2003.

Issue	Yes	No	Unclear
Supports establishing a state “Do Not Call” list without exemptions

Candidate Response: Fred Gallagher

I support the establishment of a statewide no call list. There are some proposals of my own that I would like to bring to the floor if elected that would cost very little to implement. One very simple fix to begin with is that a state regulation or law would require all Telemarketers to use identifiers when they call. Beyond this, a central clearing house could be created where citizens could go for all mail and telemarketing complaints. The complaints would be recorded and analyzed and then sent to the appropriate agency if needed.

Candidate Response: Doug Spade

I voted for HB 4042 when it first came up in the House, so I do support establishing a statewide, do-not-call list. However, it is important to remember that many solicitations come from out-of-state agencies and businesses; therefore the statewide do-not-call list would have limited effectiveness at best.

Since I do not serve on the conference committee that is currently examining this bill, I can only urge members of that committee to reach a consensus. The most important input, however, can come from Michigan citizens who are fed up with the lack of activity on this measure. Since this is an election year, their voices may be more apt to be heard.