- I'm Frederica Freyberg.
Tonight on "Here and Now," a first look at the reorganization
of the University of Wisconsin.
Then, a look ahead into the tax cut plan in progress
in Washington.
And an inside look at one county's plan
to go after pharmaceutical companies
to share the cost of the opioid epidemic.
It's "Here and Now" for October 20.
- Funding for "Here and Now" is provided, in part,
by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.
- For many across the state, it's still sinking in that the
UW System wants to restructure the way it does business.
Wisconsin Public Television is part of the UW System and would
be affected by these changes.
We will revisit the details of the plan in a moment.
But first, this background.
It's certainly not the first time
in the university's 169-year history
that changes, mergers and consolidations have happened.
But some people we've talked with have concerns the mission
of the university, with its underpinnings in the Wisconsin
idea, is at risk in this new political era.
The Wisconsin Idea, that the boundaries of the university are
the boundaries of the state, firmly took hold at the turn of
the last century when then UW President Charles Van Hise
established the Extension division to help farmers and
industry and the environment by bringing UW's research knowledge
to people across the state.
Two-year colleges opened in the 1940s to serve people returning
from war time service.
Now to today, the new plan would help avoid closing two-year UW
colleges by combining the 13 of them with four-year campuses
into kind of regional institutions.
It would also move UW Cooperative Extension,
best known for county agents, into UW-Madison.
Additionally, Extension Continuing Education Division of
Business and Public Broadcasting would move to UW System
administration.
And so with many questions about the "why" of the move and the
"how" of it, we turn to UW System President Ray Cross,
who expects to present his plan to the Board of Regents
next month.
Thanks very much for being here. - Thank you.
- Well, so you want to improve student access by merging
the two-year colleges with the four-year schools,
but isn't it really about maintaining access because
without this kind of move there would be the danger that those
two-year colleges would have to close down?
- I think it's both.
It's not only maintaining access, which is
really important, especially for those two-year campuses.
But it also involves expanding it because part of the plan
would be to bring additional three and four year level course
work to some of these campuses.
So that's expanding access.
And in some of these communities working closely with the
businesses and community leaders to determine exactly what they
need for those kind of degrees.
- Extension and Colleges, as you know,
just reorganized suffering some kind of 110 layoffs to weather a
$250 million budget cut in the last budget.
How many money will be saved by having Madison and System take
over Extension functions eliminating duplicative
services?
- We don't know now.
I've been asked that question a number of times.
Preciously, "What are you going to save from this?"
I can't answer that.
Many people will say, "If you can't answer that,
why are you doing it?"
What I do know is that the consolidation of services,
what we would refer to as administrative support services,
by consolidating a bunch of those or standardizing those
processes, what we achieve is some savings.
That clearly is self-evident.
How much, I don't know.
And I think it's going to take time for us to work through
these steps to figure out exactly what will be
consolidated, centralized, standardized, et cetera.
- How usual is it to have a plan and put it out and not have
the details?
- I think it's actually quite common,
because now it's up for public discussion.
Enough details within the concept to say,
"I like this or I don't like that." Most of the concerns that
have been expressed at this point relate to
"How did you get here?"
rather than "I don't like the plan."
So I think the process itself
is being scrutinized and that's fine.
- In terms of that process, many stakeholders,
I would suggest, I think most stakeholders,
were not included
in devising this plan or necessarily even
notified of it.
Why not?
- I think a part of what we were attempting to do
is study the data.
So internally a number of folks have been studying the data.
Externally, so have many others.
So while they may not have been involved in the plan that we
ultimately put on the table,
they were certainly looking at a
lot of the same data that we were studying:
declining enrollment, demographic issues, transfer issues.
All of those issues were front and center.
- Speaking of transfer issues, I know that a lot of people,
you know, in these schools or thinking about going to these
schools want to make sure that there's some kind of seamless
transfer process.
Will there be? - Absolutely.
In fact, I hope it's much better in the future.
I've had concerns for quite some time about the inability to
always consistently, course by course,
accept transfers and that this will help that course by course,
but it will also push us to do more block course transfer.
A number of credits--
we're not going to make you retake courses within that.
Hopefully it's seamless and it's easy and it's received well
by those that are involved.
- Now, others have raised this, saying that they are suspect of
the move of putting public broadcasting into UW System
administration, concerned, among other things,
that editorial freedom would be diminished.
What do you say to that?
- Perhaps I should ask you, do you feel that editorial freedom
is diminished today?
I don't think so.
And you're part of the UW System.
Nothing should change with that regard.
- In fact, because that editorial freedom is kind of
enshrined in the UW System policy and you're telling us
that it would continue to be so under this kind of transfer of
BAMI to your administration.
- Technically it's under my administration today in some
way, so I see no changes.
In fact, I would hope that as a pillar of principle,
public television, public radio, which functions, in my opinion,
in a very, very ethical, center path,
but not afraid to ask questions on either side, probe questions.
I hope that continues and perhaps becomes even more
effective in that role.
- As you know, we take that extremely seriously.
- I think you do it well.
- So what about concerns -- and there are some -- that folding
Extension either into UW-Madison or System administration could
erode the Wisconsin Idea?
- Well, I differ with that.
Obviously, Cooperative Extension at one point was a part of the
land grant institution, and in every other state that I know
of, the land grant institution actually administers Extension.
And it brings the application or the evidence-based application
in the field more tightly to the research side,
which fuels the evidence.
These are the things we know work through research.
It tightens that relationship.
So I think the Cooperative Extension piece
of this makes good sense.
I think it will help the university.
It will help serve the counties, the businesses and the people of
the state well.
- All right. We leave it there.
Ray Cross, thanks very much.
- Thank you, Frederica.
- In tonight's closer look, we check in with an expert
in the topic we just covered with President Cross.
He's Director at the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of
Postsecondary Education, which describes itself as supporting
the pursuit, sharing and implementation of promising
ideas for addressing fundamental challenges
in postsecondary education in Wisconsin,
the United States and internationally.
Noel Radomski is here.
Thanks very much for being here. - Thank you.
- Well, so what is your first reaction to the plan to merge
the two-year campuses with the four-year schools?
- The first reaction is it's very interesting and it has
great promise.
To some degree, it's kind of going back in the past because
the -- what we now call UW colleges were called UW centers
and prior to that, they were called Extension centers.
And they were all branch campuses
of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
So it's almost as if we're going back in time.
- Why do you think it has promise?
- It has promise because then you have the two-year UW
colleges that are closest to the four-year university and that
way it allows students to move back and forth.
Maybe they're working on a baccalaureate degree or an
associates degree and they can move back and forth.
So that's the concept. Very interesting.
- What about putting Cooperative Extension
within UW-Madison?
- Again, same thing. It goes back in time.
In 1965 they divorced Extension from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
So now basically they're going pre -- this is 1964.
- What do you think about the way it was kind of unveiled?
- Yeah.
Unfortunately, that's the negative side,
because not only -- you can say, "Well,
it should have done better.
It's just process-oriented."
And people hear that, like why.
But the problem is if you unveil it and you have poor planning,
the likelihood of success is going to be very low.
So they haven't thought out the details.
They haven't consulted with the, for example,
county executives that pay for the buildings
of the UW colleges.
They had minimal consultation with faculty who are going to
have to move around, among many other issues like what happens
-- where does a student apply?
Do they apply to UW-Marathon County or UW-Stevens Point?
All those issues haven't been discussed and planned out.
- How do we know that they don't have an ironclad plan?
Before it goes before the Regents really soon here.
- Yes. - I mean,they could have a plan.
They just haven't shared it?
- No.
If they do, perhaps we'll hear today or tonight.
But when I have talked to legislative staffers,
when I've talked to county executives around the state,
they don't have it.
So why wouldn't they have it?
If there's a plan beyond the October 11 press release,
why haven't they shared it?
- You also say that there needs to be adequate time
to put this in place. - Yes.
- Once this planning is put in place.
- Right.
- Is by July enough time?
- No. Absolutely not.
One, November's not enough time.
We don't know what the fiscal--there's no fiscal--we
don't know what the cost is.
Number two as it relates to July implementation,
students are already applying.
My son's a senior in high school.
So he's applying.
So, no. There's no chance.
And then all the really operational details;
are admission staff going to stay at UW-Marathon County or
are they going to move to UW-Stevens Point?
Are the faculty at UW-Marathon County going to stay there or
are they going to move to UW-Stevens Point?
All these very -- and when you look at past restructuring
efforts in Wisconsin as relates to issues like this,
at a minimum, at a minimum,
it's been two-year planning processes.
- I want to get to this.
You called the proposal to move three Extensions divisions
to UW System highly suspect. - Yes.
- You're including in that Wisconsin Public TV and Radio.
Why do you call it highly suspect?
- Because what the proposal is doing is moving educational,
informational divisions of UW-Extension into
administration.
And you don't want that.
You want that independence.
You want that separation between public radio,
public television and other entities that are involved in
knowledge, dissemination of knowledge, creation,
when you interview people.
So if it's part of administration,
what type of influence will they have?
There's a potential conflict of interest.
We've never done this in the state of Wisconsin.
We've always had a separation between those entities that are
involved in preservation of knowledge,
dissemination of knowledge, creation of knowledge.
And if you put those, not as reporting to a dean or
chancellor, but put it into administration,
that's a recipe for failure.
- All right. We need to leave it there.
Noel Radomski, thanks very much. - Thank you very much.
- Now to Washington, where the U.S.
Senate passed a bill Thursday that puts Congress on schedule
to pass a tax measure by the end of the year.
The bill sets in motion a $1.5 trillion tax cut.
It lands in the House of Representatives
as soon as next week.
Earlier this week, House Speaker Paul Ryan was in Madison,
where he said, "There's an urgent need for tax code
changes."
- We think the tax rates are far too high.
We think the tax code is far too riddled with loopholes.
We think the tax code is rigged.
We think it's basically a system of all these carve-outs and
loopholes and special interest groups which artificially raise
people's tax rates.
- In response to the GOP tax plan and other moves in
Washington, we talked with a Democratic member of Wisconsin
Congressional's delegation this week,
Congressman Ron Kind of La Crosse joined us in our studios
midweek.
Congressman Kind, thanks very much for being here.
- My pleasure.
- We wanted to start by asking your position on the tax plan
being put forward.
- It's been 31 years since we've taken a serious run
at the federal tax code.
It's long overdue. I'd like to simplify it.
Like to make it more competitive.
Make it fair to our families back home here,
small businesses, family farmers.
It's way too complicated with special interest tax loopholes
that have been included through the years with powerful groups
in Washington.
But we need to do this in a fiscally responsible manner too.
No big budget deficits blowing up.
So we have to pay for it.
That's where it gets complicated pretty quickly.
- Because there is an analysis that suggests that over ten
years would be causing a deficit.
So how do you offset that?
- It's hard.
That's why it's been 31 years since we've had significant
reform of the federal tax code.
It's one of the issues I speak to small business owners in
Wisconsin about a lot, the complexity of the code,
the compliance, how much time they waste just making sure they
don't run afoul of the IRS.
So for the sake of that and for people's peace of mind overall,
simplify, simplify it and make it more competitive.
But I don't want to see just more trickle-down tax cuts at
the very top, expecting to benefit everyone else and not
paying for it so that we leave a legacy of debt.
Inevitably that leads to huge cuts to Medicare and Social
Security in the future.
So that can't be the tradeoff here.
- Speaker Ryan does say that it is not designed to favor just
the super wealthy, but it certainly does benefit them.
Who do you think the winners and losers are in this current plan?
- As soon as we get more details-- and there's been a
lack of details so far.
This is a moving target and details do matter in something
like this.
But it has to be, I think, distributionally fair to working
families and not just more trickle-down at the top.
We've gone that route before.
It's led to every-increasing income inequality in our
country.
And it hasn't produced the economic bump that they keep
trying to sell it for.
- So you don't think that these kind of tax cuts
invigorate the economy?
- Well, it's not going to pay for itself.
Unfortunately there's a philosophy in Washington
believing tax cuts alone will promote economic growth and
additional revenues to pay for it.
We've never seen that in the past.
There's no economic data that supports that.
So we need to be careful we don't fall into that trap.
- Now, at the same time that Republicans are pushing the tax
cuts, the president is slicing parts of the Affordable Care
Act, including payments to insurance companies for
low-income care.
He also declares Obamacare a disaster.
This week I know there's some talk about some kind of
bipartisan plan that is kind of on again and off again.
What's your response to these actions to dismantle Obamacare?
- The president right now because he wasn't able to get
repeal and replace enacted into law is doing everything he can
to create chaos in the health insurance market.
That's unfortunate cause you're playing with people's lives.
The analysis that we saw with his elimination of cost-sharing
reductions payments will increase uninsured by over $2
million and increase premiums for everyone else.
That's taking us back to the old system,
where you have more uninsured, rising costs,
businesses large and small being less competitive because of the
cost of health care.
It's not solving problems.
We have to stop playing politics with people's lives.
We ought to recognize what's working,
fix what isn't in the health care system and stay focused on
health care costs and what we can do to bring them down to
make it more affordable to everyone.
- Is this possible?
- We need to do it because chaos benefits no one,
Republicans, Democrats, independents.
We're all in this together.
We all need access to affordable and quality health care in our
lives.
For us to sustain a growing, vibrant economy,
we've got to get the health care system fixed so it is
affordable.
- How would you fix it?
- Well, there's things going on under the Affordable Care Act.
I know the president doesn't want to hear this,
but delivery system reform by working with our health care
providers so we have a more integrated, coordinated,
patient-centered health care system.
And then the item I've been especially focused on,
payment reform.
So we're paying for the value of the outcome of care that's given
and no longer the volume of services that are rendered.
- Isn't that part of the Affordable Care Act already?
- It is, and we've seen per-capita spending on health
care at a 50-year low.
If you're an employer - I mean employee in an
employer-sponsored plan, those premiums have been relatively
steady and stable over the last eight years.
Clearly there were problems in the small group and individual
market, especially for those who aren't receiving
any subsidy payments.
They're getting hammered right now.
But that's roughly 5%, 6% of the population.
We can focus on them to provide relief.
- How have your constituents weighed in on what's happening
with health care?
- Tremendous amount of confusion and angst which is
unfortunate.
Many of them in the insurance marketplace are wondering if
they're going to be able to continue to be there,
whether they can afford the plans that are being offered.
In rural Wisconsin, it's hard to attract more plans for the
competitiveness because they don't know what the rules are
going to be from month to month, yet alone year to year.
That's unfair to them.
The best thing we can do is, as you mentioned,
the bipartisan work that's taking place in the Senate,
short-term market stabilization, focus on the small group market
and the raising cost.
And let's do something about drug prices.
That's one of the big cost drivers
in the health care system.
We're not even having hearings in Congress over that.
- As for immigrant families in your district,
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
was recently terminated.
What do you think should happen now?
- The president has given us six months-- this Congress to
fix this and I hope we do sooner rather than later cause
it's patently unfair to do this to these students who are
as American as anyone else's children.
To threaten to round them up and kick them out and send them to a
country that they've never been to and they have no ties to.
These are very bright, hardworking kids.
I've been having DACA meetings throughout my Congressional
district to try to reassure them that I'm going to do everything
in my power to make sure that's not done to them.
We're just shooting ourselves in the foot economically if we're
going to get rid of this talent that exists right in our
communities today.
- Do you think Congress can come up with a solution?
- I hope so.
I hope there's enough compassion with my colleagues that we don't
resort to what the president is calling for now and that's
kicking them out, even though they did nothing wrong.
They were brought here when they were really young children.
Many of them are serving in our military,
willing to sacrifice their lives for the future of our country.
You would think there's a compassionate middle ground to
be had here.
- Ron Kind, thanks very much.
- Thank you.
- More and more Wisconsin counties are signing on to a
potential lawsuit against opioid drug manufacturers.
This week, three more counties approved suing to recover costs
related to the prescription drug epidemic,
including Marathon County.
It's among at least six counties so far voting in favor,
with more board of supervisors votes to come.
The Wisconsin Counties Association hopes to see nearly
all counties sign on to sue.
The Wisconsin Department of Health Services reports that
1,031 people died in 2016 of opioid overdoses,
up from 872 the prior year.
Marathon County Supervisor and former pharmacy technician Sara
Guild joins us from Wisconsin Rapids.
Thank you very much for doing so.
- I'm honored to be here.
Thank you for the invitation.
- Your board of supervisors voted 30 to 3
to sign on to a lawsuit.
Why did you vote in favor?
- I vote in favor in large part because of my pharmaceutical
history.
As you mentioned, I was a pharmacy technician.
I actually trained at Mayo Clinic back in the early 2000s.
I worked for them for a few years and then later I worked
for the Oneida Tribes Clinic.
During that time I saw firsthand what was happening with trying
to get new drugs in front of our patients.
And from what I'm learning in hindsight,
a lot of the information that our doctors were being told
during that time frame was skewed.
It wasn't accurate.
It wasn't upfront and honest about what the actual risks were
for patients.
They weren't exploring and being given the opportunity to explore
alternative therapies.
Because of that, patients were being directed to drugs they
didn't realize had such painful consequences.
And now here we are, a decade plus later,
facing this horrible epidemic that is impacting so many parts
of our counties and our lives.
- So the drug manufacturers were actually telling
prescribers that these kinds of opioids were not addictive?
- So what we are being told and what I have heard and what the
evidence seems to indicate in a number of reports and things
like that is that the pharmaceutical companies were
providing, at best, misleading and at worst outright lies in
the research and the risks associated with certain
medications.
This wasn't isolated necessarily to opioids,
but opioids is where the greatest risk was because that
was opening up a lot more people to addictions that they've now
continued on beyond that initial prescription from a doctor whom
they're supposed to be able to trust.
And those doctors were prescribing on good faith as
well.
- So, in other words, it's the manufacturers allegedly to blame
and not the users or the prescribers.
- That is how it appears from the information that we've been
getting.
The manufacturers were giving this information out solely to
increase profits and to increase those sales.
And as far as I'm concerned, if we have a business that is
misleading consumers about the risks of what they're doing,
intentionally misleading consumers,
and that misleading leads to an epidemic,
a health epidemic that spans beyond just a few people to
where it's now nationwide, that's something that needs to
be addressed.
- So what has been the cost in your county,
both financially and in a human toll?
- I've got to say I've been shocked.
I've been on the county board for just a year and a half.
And in that year and a half, we have been asked to increase the
number of social workers, to increase the number of people in
our DA's office that are handling cases related to not
just drug felonies, but to the consequences of children being
taken out of their homes because their parents are so addicted to
drugs they can't handle raising their kids.
Our foster services are overwhelmed.
Our jails are overwhelmed.
We are seeing more and more costs every year with fewer and
fewer resources coming from state and federal government to
help us offset those.
We've got to have some kind of statement made here that this
can't happen.
- We need to leave it there.
But we will be watching these counties as they continue to
vote on joining on to this potential lawsuit.
Sara Guild, thank you very much.
- Thank you very much.
- Now for another Wisconsin news story of the week,
a debate started this week over the longstanding motto that
appears on Wisconsin's license plates.
"America's Dairyland" has been in place since World War II.
The head of Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce
suggests the slogan could use an update.
He suggested the state motto "Forward." The Wisconsin Farm
Bureau responded by saying, "No other product has more of an
economic impact in the state," though Wisconsinites weighed in
as well.
Appearing online this week were suggestions such as "Land of
10,001 lakes" or "Ya hey der."
Despite the discussion, no formal process has begun to
change the slogan.
And that is our program for tonight.
I'm Frederica Freyberg.
Have a great weekend.
- Funding for "Here and Now" is provided, in part,
by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.