Texas Now Serves Fewer Family Planning Patients and Spends More Money To Do It

wayne christian.jpg
Rep. Wayne Christian
In the last legislative session, Texas lawmakers cut the state's family planning budget by two-thirds, a loss of around $73.6 million over the next two years. The reason behind this, naturally, was that "family planning" is clearly a secret code word for "abortion."

"Of course this is a war on birth control and abortions and everything," Representative Wayne Christian told the Texas Tribune. "That's what family planning is supposed to be about."

The facts that abortion and birth control are not the same thing, and that the state's family planning clinics don't provide abortions using taxpayer dollars, didn't seem to deter conservative lawmakers. As they busily moved money from family planning to elsewhere in the state's health services budget, they also put into place a new, three-tiered funding structure, one that ensured that clinics which only provided family planning services (read: Planned Parenthood) would receive their money dead last. (This "war," to use Christian's term, was separate from the one conservative lawmakers are waging to boot Planned Parenthood from the Women's Health Program , although they made it clear PP was also the real target in ransacking family planning. Yet plenty of small, non-PP clinics were also affected, with some reducing their hours, raising costs or even closing their doors altogether.)

Now, the Department of State Health Services has released new documents showing how the new, lean, highly efficient family planning budget is working for the state. Or not working. Those documents show that the program is now serving almost 128,000 fewer people, while spending more money per patient.

Jordan Smith at the Austin Chronicle was the first to lay out the new program's flaws . She points to a memo sent to the State Health Services Council by the Department of State Health Services. The memo, which we've posted below, shows that in 2012, the family planning budget served 75,160 people, at a cost of $236.54 each. Last year, before the cuts went into effect, the family planning money served 202,968 people, and cost $205.93 per patient.

In other words, the cost per patient has climbed by 15 percent, while the number of people served has nosedived by 63 percent. (A DSHS spokesperson told the Chronicle that's due to "infrastructure costs," and that the situation should "resolve itself over time.")

In the new funding structure, family planning money is going first to entities known as federally qualified healthcare centers, which are primary care community health clinics. There are 69 of them in Texas, according to DSHS, operating at around 300 sites.

But FQHCS aren't specifically set up to provide family planning services, and, as the Texas Observer points out they have struggled to cope with the influx of new patients. Outside of the new family planning money, many also continue to have serious budgetary issues of their own.

As former Dallas Observer staffer Andrea Grimes points out over on RH Reality Check, some family planning entities are trying a new tactic to restore some of their funding. The remaining money in the family planning budget is Title X funding, which is federal money that can legally only go to family planning services. A coalition of family planning entities hope they can apply for this money directly from the federal government, as they told the Texas Observer , thus avoiding the creative ways Texas has chosen to distribute it.

To sum up: the state's family planning dollars are serving fewer people for more money, at the same time that Texans will have to scrounge around for an extra $39 million this year to fund the new, Planned Parenthood-free, state-run Women's Health Program. All of this is ostensibly to prevent taxpayer-funded abortions.

Taxpayer-funded abortions are imaginary. But it's becoming obvious that the consequences -- to the state budget, to the Texas taxpayers who fund these services and to the poor men and women who use them -- are real.

DSHS Family Planning Memo

My Voice Nation Help
18 comments
PerryMoore
PerryMoore

Along with Ms. Merlan, I am appalled that our government is so grossly inefficient when it comes to distributing family planning funds. By all means, let's find a way to bring that per capita spending back to its previous level. That, or shut up with the gotcha pieces and explain to us in real numbers just exactly what we are getting for that $236.54. I hope it's 75,160 people smart enough to know how to avoid having welfare babies, but I doubt it.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

Perry rejected federal funds for unemployed Texans and insists he will reject federal funds for expanding Medicaid.  Yet, he took stimulus funds from Obama and spent them on hiring more staffers for himself and gilding the Governor's Mansion.  His refusal to work for The People is unconscionable.

plfarmer
plfarmer

I think you missed Rep. Christians' full qoute. I will paraphase: "Of course this is a war the poor in regards to birth control and abortions and everything. the middle class are good christians like me, and would never need such a thing. And as for the almighty job creators, well they are smarter then us, they create jobs you know, so we don't pry."

albert.finney000
albert.finney000

Seems a perfect opportunity for the private sector to make up shortfall by chipping in their own bucks.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

[sarcasm alert] Hey, great job Texas Republicans! the reduction in number of patients receiving family planning services will go a long way to realizing your goal of reducing the number of elective abortions! Well done, keep up the good work! [end sarcasm alert]

observist
observist topcommenter

Am I imagining things, or is there some correlation between evangelical anti-abortionism and creepy baby-faced men?  This guy, David Barton, Ralph Reed, Marcus Bachmann, Joel Osteen...

Chuck_Schick
Chuck_Schick

Gotta love it when "limited government" becomes more expensive than what was in place previously.

reedcole
reedcole

@albert.finney000 as Allen said I am surprised that a stay at home mom able to earn $7886 in a few weeks on the cnetwork.

albert.finney000
albert.finney000

@observist -It is kinda creepy, maybe it's Gods work. When folks make pitches for contributions for needy third world children, they usually use actual needy third world children. There's a correlation there I think, I just haven't figured out yet what it is.

Anna_Merlan
Anna_Merlan

@observist Dan Patrick too, now that you mention it. 

But what about Rick Perry? He's many things, but I suppose "baby-faced" isn't really one of them. 

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@Chuck_Schick 

It's only a waste of money if the wrong sort of people are getting some kind of benefit from it.

albert.finney000
albert.finney000

@Anna_Merlan @observist -- Rick Perry wasn't born, he was sculpted. Michaelanelo's David is in reality dumber than a brick.

Chuck_Schick
Chuck_Schick

@TheCredibleHulk Health care doesn't discriminate - and neither should our state government. Perry has erased the line between politics and policy.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@albert.finney000 albert, since you're the only rightie on this thread, I'll point my comments at you.  Why do people like you get involved in this shit?  You don't care enough about gov't to run it right.  So, you get bad governance from those you support (who don't believe in gov't)  

I'm not happy with the dems monopoly on ":good governance" but the GOP really doesn't offer an alternative, just an adolescent bitch fest that is full of "cut off your nose to spite your face" policies.  

I'm half convinced that I'm the true conservative here, along with Scott'sMerk, and a few others.  We lean libertarian but not so blindly that we're discarding reality.  I also make this appeal hoping you're not too ideological to get my point. 

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...