Use either the form or links on the side to filter the list of publications. Browse other LAO products using the links at the bottom of the sidebar.
4,806 Publications Found
February 20, 2008 - Elizabeth Hill discusses highlights from our 2008-09 Analysis of the Budget Bill and Perspectives and Issues.
February 20, 2008 - Provides details of the LAO alternative budget for expenditure issues. The savings shown are relative to the Governor’s workload budget. In total, these proposals would reduce state costs by $1.8 billion in 2007‑08 and $9 billion in 2008‑09. For each proposal, we provide either (1) a rationale for our inclusion of the item in the alternative or (2) a reference to where we provide such a rationale (typically our companion publication, the Analysis of the 2008‑09 Budget Bill).
February 20, 2008 - The administration proposes to (1) limit the amount of revenues that the General Fund could receive in any year and (2) implement a system by which the administration could trigger across-the-board reductions if the state’s budget situation declined. Although the measure would help even out the state’s revenues from year to year, it would also be inflexible to legislative decision making on a year-to-year basis and would fail to prioritize state spending. Consequently, we recommend that the Legislature reject the proposed changes. We provide, instead, some alternatives it could consider which build upon the positive aspects of the Governor’s proposal.
February 20, 2008 - The Governor’s budget includes almost no new revenue-raising proposals. Given the magnitude of the budget problem, we examine the state’s existing tax structure in the same way as the spending side--with an eye towards reducing inefficient or ineffective provisions. In this section, we discuss proposals that look at the revenue side of the budget. In so doing, we have applied the same approach as with direct spending programs--that is, we have examined tax-related provisions referred to as tax expenditure programs (TEPs)--and recommended changes to those that are not achieving their stated purposes or are of a lower priority.
February 20, 2008 - In contrast to the administration’s across-the-board reduction budget-balancing approach that fails to prioritize state spending, we offer an alternative approach for the Legislature’s consideration. By making more targeted reductions; eliminating or modifying ineffectiveness or nonessential programs; and adding ongoing revenue solutions, we believe this approach offers the Legislature a better foundation to begin crafting a 2008-09 budget that focuses on essential services. This piece provides an overview of the key components of this alternative approach. Our alternative budget would end the 2008-09 fiscal year with a $1.3 billion reserve, and remain balanced through 2012-13.
February 20, 2008 - The cost of mental health drugs in the Medi-Cal Program continues to grow. We estimate the state can save about $5 million General Fund annually by reducing inappropriate prescribing practices. Accordingly, we recommend the Legislature consider the following two options: (1) encourage county participation in the California Mental Health Care Management (CalMEND) Program and (2) expand the use of fixed annual allocations to counties that include the cost of prescription drugs. We further recommend the Legislature approve the Governor’s CalMEND proposal to support three limited-term positions and expand program activities.
February 20, 2008 - The Legislature relies on departments to promulgate regulations to implement laws. The Department of Public Health is slow to promulgate such regulations and consequently, state laws are not being enforced or applied consistently across the state. We recommend the department report at budget hearings on the status of the development and promulgation of unissued regulations.
February 20, 2008 - The state’s current process for administration and funding of over 30 public health programs at the local level is fragmented, inflexible, and fails to hold local health jurisdictions (LHJs) accountable for achieving results. This reduces the effectiveness of these programs because these services are not coordinated or integrated and LHJs cannot focus on meeting the overall goal of improving the public’s health. We recommend (1) the consolidation of certain public health programs into a block grant. and (2) the enactment of legislation that would direct the Department of Public Health (DPH) to develop a model consolidated contract for these and other public health programs (which are not consolidated into the block grant). In addition, we recommend that outcome measures for these programs be developed and that DPH work with counties in using a consolidated contract.