Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Services Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee warned DDA and behavioral health funding face cuts in governor’s proposal
Summary
DLS told the committee the governor proposes $150 million in general fund cost containment for the Developmental Disabilities Administration (about $300 million total funds) and flagged what it sees as potential underfunding for behavioral health services and provider rate increases.
The Department of Legislative Services told the Ways and Means Committee that the governor’s FY27 proposal includes significant cost containment for the Developmental Disabilities Administration and notable choices on behavioral health funding.
“There's a 150,000,000 reduction of note related to the Developmental Disabilities Administration. The governor's proposed 150,000,000 of cost containment,” David Romans said, explaining DLS’s initial read of the governor’s plan. Romans later confirmed the $150 million in state general fund savings translates to about $300 million in total funds because of an approximate 50/50 federal match.
Delegate Griffith pressed DLS on whether the state reduction would also reduce federal matching dollars; Romans said it would, estimating the $150 million state cut equates to a $300 million reduction in total DDA funding.
Romans also raised concern that the administration’s forecast reduces Medicaid behavioral health growth assumptions by about $171 million compared with DLS’s earlier projections, and DLS said it will take a deeper look with the Appropriations Committee. "We have some concerns that they've underfunded behavioral health, but we will be taking a deeper dive into that," Romans said.
DLS noted there is no money in the governor’s proposal for provider rate increases for health and human services providers — a line that previously has moved with COLA and insurance costs — which the agency estimated saves about $86 million in the plan.
Committee members asked for further analysis on service impacts, federal matching consequences and whether provider capacity or access could be affected by the proposed funding posture.
