ri expenditures relative to other states

8/7/2019 RI Expenditures Relative to Other States

1/5

Public welfare is a Census-defined category that includes cash assistance (supplemental securityincome, temporary aid to needy families, or any other form of direct cash assistance, andMedicaid disproportionate share payments); vendor payments (payments made directly to privatevendors for medical care on behalf of means-tested beneficiaries, e.g., Medicaid Title XIX andMedicare Part D payments); and other public welfare (including public nursing homes,orphanages, and homes for the elderly).

The following uses data from the US Bureau of the Census State and Local GovernmentFinances survey for FY 2008, the most recent year for which data is available. Thesecomparisons show Rhode Islands expenditures on a per capita and per $1,000 of personalincome basis. One should note that eligibility levels are not directly reflected in these numbers per se. Rather, they reflect total expenditures based on a variety of factors including, but notlimited to, eligibility requirements, state demographics, personal income, and population density.

Between FY 1998 and FY 2008, vendor payments per $1,000 of personal income in RhodeIsland have increased from $23.66 (10th highest in the country) to $44.24 (2nd in the country).Per capita, FY 2008 vendor payments of $1,785 per capita in Rhode Island were 78.1 percent

higher than the national average and were the highest in the country. If Rhode Island were to spend at the New England average (per capita), the State would have

saved $370.7 million (19.6 percent) in Vendor payments in FY 2008. If the States spendingmatched the regions average per $1,000 of personal income, Rhode Island would have saved$619.8 million (32.8 percent).

Similarly, if Rhode Island spent at the national average, the State would have saved $827.8million on a per capita basis and $804.1 million on a per $1,000 of personal income basis.

Per Capita Per $1k Per Capita Per $1k Per Capita Per $1k

Rhode Island $1,785 $44.24 $53 $1.30 $2,036 $50.45

NE Ave 1,435 29.72 65 1.34 1,761 36.47

US Ave 1,003 25.40 68 1.73 1,341 33.99

NE Ave v. RI -$350 -$14.52 $12 $0.04 -$275 -$13.98

US Ave v. RI -783 -18.84 16 0.43 -694 -16.46

Total Expenditures

Current RI Exp. $1,888,338 $1,888,338 $55,583 $55,583 $1,057,832 $1,057,832

RI @ NE Ave 1,517,669 1,268,501 68,601 57,338 1,862,708 1,556,891

RI @ US Ave 1,060,539 1,084,231 72,139 73,750 1,419,078 1,450,780

RI Savings @ NE Ave $370,669 $619,837 -$13,018 -$1,755 $290,850 $596,667

RI Savings @ US Ave 827,799 804,107 -16,556 -18,167 734,480 702,778

RI Savings @ NE Ave % 19.6% 32.8% -23.4% -3.2% 13.5% 27.7%

RI Savings @ US Ave % 43.8% 42.6% -29.8% -32.7% 34.1% 32.6%

Source: US Bureau of the Census; Bureau of Economic Analysis; RIPEC calculations

Table 1

Select FY 2008 State and Local Public Welfare Expenditures ($ thousands)

Vendor Pymts Cash Assistance Total Public Welfare


2/5


3/5

Table 2 shows how Rhode Islands expenditures would compare to four other states: NewYork, the highest spending state for total public welfare per capita; Nevada, the lowestspending state per capita; Iowa, which ranked 25th in the country for public welfareexpenditures per capita; and Massachusetts, which ranked 6th in the country per capita, and issimilarly situated to Rhode Island, which ranked 3rd.

Rhode Island outspent every comparison state with regard to vendor payments on both a percapita and a per $1,000 of personal income basis. Savings per capita ranged from a high of$1,375 million (72.9 percent) if the State had spent at the same level as Nevada to a low of$125.1 million (6.6 percent) if the State had spent at the same level as Massachusetts.

When vendor payments as a share of personal income were compared, Rhode Islandssavings ranged from a high of $1,380.4 million (73.1 percent) if the State had spent at hesame level as Nevada to a low of $476.3 million (25.2 percent) if the State had spent atMassachusetts expenditure levels.

By contrast, Rhode Island spent less than every comparison state, with the exception of Nevada, for cash assistance payments as measured on a per capita basis. When theseexpenditures were measured as a share of personal income, Massachusetts was the only otherstate to have lower cash assistance expenditures.


4/5


5/5

ERROR: undefined

OFFENDING COMMAND:

STACK:

ri expenditures relative to other states

Documents