Senators press Appropriations on DHHS cuts, ABA rate changes and Education Future Fund transfers
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Floor debate on the mainline budget included sustained questioning about proposed DHHS cuts (~$100M), provider rate corrections that reduce ABA spending by about $11–12M, and transfers from the Education Future Fund that could leave the fund structurally short in later years.
As debate on LB 10‑71 continued, multiple senators pressed Appropriations Committee members for details on several line items and proposed savings in AM 21‑62.
Senator McKinney and others criticized the plan to convert the McCook work‑ethic camp in part for proposed federal contracting (see separate item), while senators focused heavily on Department of Health and Human Services reductions. Committee chair Senator Clements said the committee identified roughly $100 million in savings in the second year of the biennium and described strategies including converting contract staff to state employees and rate corrections. “We had 20 agencies that have reduced in this budget and 27 that are either level or went up,” Clements said, and referred members to the Goldenrod book for line‑by‑line detail.
Senators DeBoer and others asked for specifics. Clements and analysts identified a personal‑service limit increase tied to converting contractors (roughly $25.8 million in PSL changes across the biennium) and said applied behavioral analysis (ABA) provider rate corrections account for about $11–12 million of the reductions.
Senator Mikaela Kavanaugh raised concern about the Education Future Fund cash flow: the bill shows regular transfers to the fund of $250 million but expenditures of roughly $420 million annually, producing a projected deficit by the 2028–29 biennium unless transfers or expenditures change. She warned that special education funding, foundation aid and several one‑time grants are paid from that fund and flagged long‑term sustainability questions.
Several senators expressed concern that proposed Medicaid “savings” may shift costs to hospitals or individuals if coverage is lost, and emphasized the need for clearer fiscal notes and agency detail before approving major adjustments.
What’s next: Appropriations will continue to answer line‑item questions and may return with additional amendments or bills directing DHHS adjustments; the floor record shows ongoing negotiation but no final disposition recorded in the provided excerpt.