Aid- in- dying law study is crucial

We hate to nitpick a $ 44,041 budget cut in a masterfully crafted $ 26.8 billion budget, but lawmakers should not be refusing to fund data collection on the prescription of life- ending drugs under Colorado’s aid- in- dying initiative.

Among our biggest concerns with Proposition 106 in November, as voters considered allowing doctors to prescribe fatal drugs to terminally ill patients, was that there wouldn’t be enough safeguards in place to ensure the program wasn’t abused.

Among the greatest strengths of Proposition 106— which passed with the support of 65 percent of voters— was that it required reporting key statistics about use of the program, although we would have liked to have seen spelled out more specifically what information the state would collect.

The $ 44,041 would have funded a survey of prescribing doctors and the compilation of demographic data about users taking life- ending drugs and the reasons why. That’s critical information.

To now not fund that reporting requirement seems more of a political statement by those in the General Assembly who are opposed to aid- in- dying laws. But it’s also bad public policy. Everyone needs to know whether this program is working and how it is being used.

The only reason not to fund the study would be to cover up data that indicates medical aid in dying is working well and is free from abuse, which— and this should go without saying— would be a terrible reason indeed. More informative, detailed data make for responsive laws.

That said, let’s keep in mind that the six members of the bipartisan Joint Budget Committee were able to craft a balanced budget despite having a heavily encumbered mess to start out with.

The elephant in the budget room squeezing everything else is Medicaid. The state will spend $ 273 million more onMedicaid and the federal government will spend $ 361 million more next fiscal year. Medicaid is a critical safety net health insurance program for nearly a quarter of Coloradans, but we would be remiss if we didn’t point out that it’s also hugely expensive and getting costlier.

There are other increases in the budget. K- 12 schools will see an increase in total program funding — the per- pupil payment the state gives to districts— of $ 238 million. That increase is also mandated by the voter- approved Amendment 23.

To help pay for those two expenses, lawmakers have decided to cut Colorado taxpayers’ refunds. It’s a tough decision, but it’s one we support as necessary given the importance of fully funding the increases inMedicaid and education.

Before critics get up in arms that the state is working around the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights to keep the $ 286.7 million in refunds, we’d like to point out that they actually are keeping that money by reducing revenue. Hospitals will bear the brunt of that revenue cut as it’s coming from the Hospital Provider Fee, a charge on hospital stays that gets matched by the federal government and then redistributed to hospitals.

Ending on a positive note, we should all celebrate the proposed demise of a $ 3 million subsidy for those coming to Colorado to film movies, sitcoms and even commercials. It’s not going to be an easy cut to make, as many are lobbying on behalf of the economic development tool.

Lawmakers need to look for more places like that where they can make smart trims, and try harder to avoid political statements like cutting money for important data collection.