Industry Insight: Missouri overlooked in community health center funding
Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond
Posted online
Editor's note: U.S. Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond wrote this letter Dec. 15 to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (the former governor of Kansas) after the latest round of federal grants to community health centers left out any centers in Missouri.
Dear Secretary Sebelius:
On Dec. 9, President Obama announced more than $500 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act awards to support major construction and renovation projects at community health centers.
Twelve of the 21 community health centers in Missouri applied to receive funding under this grant process, yet not one of them received funding. In fact, many of the states in the region, including Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Wisconsin, did not receive funding.
While I am dismayed to receive this news, I am even more frustrated to read the report by the Boston Globe stating "roughly $1 of every $8 that the federal Health Resources and Services Administration committed to community clinics is bound for Massachusetts."
After doing the math, it appears that Massachusetts received roughly $80 million, almost 16 percent of the total grant award under this most recent announcement. California received roughly $65 million, almost 13 percent of the total grant award under this most recent grant announcement. Missouri, on the other hand, received nothing under this grant announcement. Missouri CHCs already have received $26 million in ARRA funds, but this pales in comparison to the $172 million that California already has received, and the $37 million that Massachusetts already has received. Based on HHS' ARRA funding Web site (www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/hrsa/index.html), when the most recent award announcement is added, it brings the total to $238 million for California, $118 million for Massachusetts and $26 million for Missouri in funding for CHCs.
The administration cannot tell me that the need for health services is any less in rural and urban Missouri and other Heartland states than in those communities funded in Massachusetts and California. While I respect the competitive grant process, I am troubled by the fact that 29 percent of the funding for the most recent ARRA grant announcement went to only two states, and many states, all on the front lines of trying to provide health care to our most vulnerable populations, did not receive any funding.
This disparity in funding raises troubling questions about whether every effort was made in the competitive grant process to distribute fairly across the country this federal taxpayer money. What criterion was used to determine which applicants were chosen? What was the geographic makeup of the members on the Objective Review Committee? Since the amount of capital funding for CHCs available through the Facility Investment Program opportunity was so significant and unprecedented in the history of the program, what extra steps were taken during the review process to ensure that the applications were sound and shovel ready? Also, why were no applications from Missouri funded in the most recent grant announcement? Missouri would benefit from feedback from your administration.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I hope you will give this issue your utmost consideration, and I look forward to your timely response.
