May 5th Entry

The Chicago SunTimes printed an article that serves as an update to my last blog on Madigan and her bill to force non profit hospitals to devote 8% of their operating costs to charity care to justify their tax-exempt status. In “Madigan’s Law on Hospital Care for the Poor,” Lori Rackl describes the problems that non profit hospitals have with the bill. (http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-charity03.html) They are lobbying hard against it because they say it will cause them to have to “cut services, forgo improvements, and possibly shut down.” According to the article, Madigan has decided to postpone the bill until next year. She still wants the bill passed, but she has decided to introduce a new version of it next year, based on negotiations with the lobbying hospitals.
I think this puts Madigan in a positive light. It shows that she does not back down from her fight to protect consumers, but that she does take into consideration the hospitals’ concerns. On the other hand, perhaps she feels the hospitals are correct and the bill will bring negative consequences and she doesn’t want to push it through until after her reelection.

News to March 10

According to the article “Edward: Charity Bill Would Cripple Hospitals” in the Naperville Sun (http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/sunpub/naper/news/n16charity.htm), “Edward Hospital officials believe if a state plan to expand charity care services is approved by Illinois lawmakers the hospital could face a deficit as high as $7 million.” Lisa Madigan is spearheading the state plan, which “mandates that all hospitals' total charity care equal at least 8 percent of a provider's operating costs.” The plan, therefore, would raise the amount of money hospitals must use for charity care, but would therefore lower the amount hospitals could put toward development, upgrades, equipment, etc. Brian Davis, the vice president of Edward Hospital, points out that most hospitals already spend a good deal of money on charity care and that they provide benefits to the community, sometimes at a monetary loss to the hospital. Davis reported that Edwards hospital spent about $3.4 million on charity care last year and quoted a figure of $22.5 million that would have been spent had Madigan’s bill been in effect.
The difference between those numbers shows that Madigan’s bill has the potential to help a great deal more people who cannot afford health care. However, the difference also shows the staggering amount that could now not be used for maintenance and equipment upgrades for the hospital. Although it seems on the surface that Madigan is acting as a “do-gooder,” the reality of the situation according to the information provided by Edwards Hospital is that this bill could hurt more people than it helps. If people hear about this wide scale, It could hurt Madigan’s campaign as this is an example of something she has apparently investigated all aspects of (that or she just doesn’t care about the repercussions of the bill). However presumably any negative effects of the bill won’t be apparent until after her campaign so perhaps it won’t be a problem for her as she seeks re-election.

News to Feb. 28

In the article “Lawmaker challenges utilities on rate plan” from Journalstandard.com (http://www.journalstandard.com/articles/2006/02/25/local_news/news01.txt) the author informs the reader that Lisa Madigan is working toward the same goal as the state representative who is the subject of the article. Lisa Dugan, the representative, is trying to block a change in the way Illinoisans buy electricity—a change that could lead to a 20% rate increase. According to the article, Lisa Madigan is working in the same direction, filing a suit against the Illinois Commerce Commission. Although she filed the suit last year, it was dismissed, but she said she plans to appeal in effort to protect consumers.
Regardless of the adverse affects Madigan’s suit might have on the utility companies, she seems to be doing the right thing in terms of her campaign for reelection. Fighting to save voters money is something that will surely please residents of Illinois.

In “Madigan Warns of New Identity Theft Scam,” (http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_055082239.html) Madigan’s warning to consumers is explained. She publicized an e-mail scam in which e-mail recipients are told someone has been using their social security number and are prompted to go to a website wherein they are asked to give their social security numbers and/or financial information. This warning is an effort to protect consumers and it publicizes Madigan’s name. The article says not that Madigan’s office has published the warning but that Madigan herself has done so—emphasizing that she herself is the one watching out for Illinois residents.

A political science professor I had said that when voters are deciding who they want in state and local office they ask the question “What have you done for me lately?” It seems from these articles about Madigan that she will have plenty of concrete and specific answers to give to voters.

News Jan 16- Jan 28

http://www.ag.state.il.us/pressroom/2006_01/20060124.htmlIn the article linked above, "MADIGAN, BROSNAHAN, MALONEY: NEW LEGISLATION WOULD PROTECT NURSING HOME RESIDENTS FROM CONVICTED FELONS AND SEX OFFENDERS" Attorney General LisaMadigan, who is seeking re-election, receives some excellent press (as one would expect, since it is linked to her own website) in terms of the issues she claims to stand for. The article discusses "An Act to Protect Vulnerable Adults"--a bill that Madigan, along with Brosnahan and Maloney, is spear heading. The bill would require that nursing homes conduct background checks on residents and report any convicted felons or sex offenders to the Illinois Department of Public Health, who would assess the risk of the individual and decide how to handle the resident's case from there. All deaths of nursing home residents would also have to be reported to the county coroner for investigation to prevent cases of abuse or neglect at the facilities. The article includes statements from the legislators involved and from heads of various citizens' organizations, including an Arkansas coroner whose state passed a similar bill with what he describes as great success.This is incredibly positive press for Madigan. Her platform is her promise to protect the citizens of Illinois and here she is shown acting on that promise in a very tangible way--this bill provides for specific actions that need to be taken and the success of the bill will be measurable. The positive statements from the citizens' groups provide support for her. The fact that she is spear heading this bill with both a democrat (Maloney) and a republican (Brosnahan) shows her ability to work with and protect the interests of members of both political parties.Madigan was also in the news on January 16. The Suntimes ran the article "Madigan Offers Help for Identity Theft Victims" (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/idtheft16.html). The article covered her decision to create two positions for the purpose of helping people who have been victims of identity theft rebuild their credit. The two employees will serve as advocates people can reach by phone who will help the people deal with creditors and police. The article was again a positive one that showed Madigan to be using her current office to act on her campaign promise to protect consumers. The article did mention that the two positions would require salaries of $50 to $60 thousand per year, but said the money would come from Madigan's budget for consumer protection. The article did leave me wondering whether just two employess would be able to handle what potentially could become a pretty voluminous job, but until we see how that plays out, it seems that Madigan once again acted on her campaign promises and made a move that would appeal to and be in the interests of many Illinois residents, regardless of political party.