Nonprofit social service organizations in Connecticut are pressing legislators to privatize more of the services they offer to residents. State-sponsored services, when privatized, could bring more prospective providers into the fold.
They also seek Connecticut legislators to “resolve a growing disagreement” over the municipal tax status of these specific nonprofit organizations. The claims involve Connecticut relying on a dual system of care that actually increases costs and has not allowed the overall system to adapt to changing times.
As more people turn to home care support services, for example, it leaves out numerous agencies providing caregivers and even visiting nurses. By limiting the number of organizations permitted to offer care through state-sponsored social service system, it can limit the number of elderly and disabled residents who have access to these important services.
The private, nonprofit sector have been delivering the bulk of state-sponsored human services throughout Connecticut. Now, they are seeking even more state-sponsored services to be funneled their way.
As reported on by The CT Mirror in the news blog, Nonprofits press CT to privatize more social services, written by Keith M. Phaneuf:
“Representatives of both the nonprofit industry and the state’s largest health care workers union participated earlier this winter in a human services research panel preparing recommendations for new Gov. Ned Lamont.
Deborah Schwartz, vice president and home care director for SEIU Healthcare 1199NE (known for many years as New England Healthcare Employees Union District 1199) said when the panel delivered its report on Dec. 17 that Connecticut needs to focus on greater investment in health care — across the board.
Schwartz noted that more than 2,000 developmentally disabled citizens are “mired” on controversial state waiting lists for residential placements. Most on that list are middle-aged patients cared for most of their lives by parents who now are elderly.”
Supporters of this agenda claim that private organizations have more of an incentive to improve levels of care and even seek out innovative methods to streamline communication and access to care to those who need it most. Opponents to more privatization claim that it softens regulations and could expose the most vulnerable to increased levels of fraud, abuse, or crime.
The state is grappling with vastly increasing pension and other debt obligations and, therefore, is concerned about the future viability of specific social service programs. By increasing privatization, it may help alleviate some of the future expenses the state incurs, but it is still unclear how this might impact access to care for some of the state’s most vulnerable.