CAPITOL REPORT: HEALTHCARE PLAN IN DOUBT

Despite considerable momentum within the General Assembly and from high political circles in the state, doubt has arisen in recent days over passage of the Carnahan administration's health-care reform package. Introduced last month amid fanfare by Gov. Carnahan and his Cabinet directors, the Missouri Health Assurance Plan (MoHAP) could falter in the final stages for several reasons.

First, there's the so-called "X" factor in the plan's enabling legislation (House Bill 1622), arguably as complicated as last year's S.B. 380, which rewrote the public school foundation formula while providing additional tax funding for poorer districts around the state. This "X" factor certainly is a part of Speaker Bob Griffin's H.B. 1622, which is 156 pages in length and provides for major alterations in health-care delivery and insurance.

Then there's the growing question whether the Carnahan administration has provided sufficient funding for a full-scale revision of one of the state's largest industries, involving such elements as physicians, hospitals, pharmacists, insurance companies and other care providers. This was the pitfall experienced in the State of Tennessee where officials now admit they attempted to revise too much too quickly with too little income. Missourians have attempted to avoid the problems encountered with "Tenn-Care," although many of the same elements of the Tennessee plan are present in our state's proposal.

And lastly, doubt has increased in recent days because of the absence of widespread citizen support at the grassroots level. It's not that John Q. Public is necessarily opposed to the Carnahan plan, but rather that he doesn't fully comprehend all of the changes being proposed. Unlike the Outstanding Schools Act, where public support was overwhelmingly in favor of greater equity and additional state funding for poor school districts, backing has thus far failed to materialize.

A survey the other day of 127 voters scattered throughout the state by the Missouri Political News Letter showed only 26 percent favored the Carnahan health-care plan, while 23 percent were opposed, with the most significant figure -- 47 percent -- replying they had no opinion or lacked sufficient information. This result would indicate there will be no full-fledged public support of MoHAP until voters know more of its details --and like what they know about it. In the meantime, several groups opposing the proposal will have the same amount of time to convince voters they don't need a major overhaul of Missouri's health-care system when only minor changes will fine-tune its delivery.

* * *

CASE CONTINUED: Speaking of S.B. 380, it required less than three hours for the Missouri Supreme Court to hear arguments for and against the constitutionality of the old school foundation formula, which more than a year ago was held invalid by Cole County Circuit Judge Byron Kinder. Arguments for and against Kinder's findings were heard the other day by the state's high tribunal, which could rule as early as this month or as late as May or June. Readers will remember that when Kinder handed down his ruling, the General Assembly adopted a revision of the foundation formula in an attempt to make it more equitable and then proceeded to vote other major reforms into a bill that has become known as the Outstanding Schools Act. This measure funnels an additional $1 billion of tax money into the state's 535 school districts.

Atty. Gen. Jay Nixon, representing the state, argued that Kinder was wrong is his finding, despite the fact the state's Democratic leadership is overwhelmingly in favor of the new law and supported S.B. 380. The case is known as Committee for Educational Equality, et al vs. the State of Missouri, et al.

In the event Kinder's decision finding the old formula to be unconstitutional is reversed by the Supreme Court, the act provides for a public referendum on S.B. 380. State officials hope to avoid such a vote because of the possibility its revenue enhancement features would be overturned by the voters, thus putting the state in the same bind it had before the Kinder ruling in January, 1993.

* * *

SAVING STANBURY: The Stanbury Uniform Corp. plant in Brookfield is one of the three largest band uniform manufacturers in the nation, and when management announced that it was moving the 128-employee facility to Florida, a number of people jumped to the rescue. Rather than stand by idly while the plant equipment was leaving the state, public and private agencies got their heads together and decided to do something about it. Namely, they decided to take the unusual step of keeping the plant in Brookfield by purchasing it, more or less like the fellow on TV who liked the electric razor so much he decided to buy the company.

The remedy was an $800,000 low-interest loan from the Missouri Department of Economic Development to the City of Brookfield, which in turn bought the plant and then made its stock available to the employees, who now own 100 percent of the facility. Taking part in this unusual venture were the employees, their union (Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers), the city government, the Green Hills Regional Planning Council, a local bank and the state development agency. An economic study conducted by experts at the University of Missouri said the plant's relocation to Florida would have resulted in a loss of about $155,000 each year in state, county and city taxes.

* * *

DREAM DISASTER: A few years ago, a St. Louis auto worker, looking forward to retirement, decided to build his dream home in a scenic area of St. Francois County. Although assured that he would have no expense for a power hookup, Emmett Hurt had no sooner built his home then he ran into a policy change from the local utility, Union Electric. Now, it turns out, the utility wants $10,000 for the connecting line, and at this writing, the retired and permanently disabled auto worker is still trying to find some way to move into the home he and his family worked years to build. To date, even the state's Public Service Commission has refused to intervene in his behalf.