Medicaid to halt MAPPS funding
Prevention program falls to 3% across-board cuts
Despite South Carolina's rising teen pregnancy rate, Medicaid is eliminating funding for pregnancy prevention services.
Medicaid Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Services, known as MAPPS, provides $400,000 annually in funding for education and counseling for youths ages 10 to 19 who are at risk for engaging in sex at an early age.
MAPPS is slated to be eliminated in December, said Jeff Stensland, director of public information for the state's Medicaid agency.
Forty MAPPS programs exist throughout the state and are run through community outreaches, nonprofits and in some schools. Cutting the funding could result in an undetermined number of layoffs.
The state Medicaid agency is still in the process of notifying MAPPS providers of the program's elimination, Stensland said. Providers in Charleston, including Communities in Schools of Charleston and Florence Crittenton, said Thursday they had not been notified of the cut.
Forrest Alton, director of the South Carolina Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, said, "For the first time in the last 15 years, teen pregnancy rates have increased. At a time like this, we should be increasing our investment in young people, not cutting programs that have proven effective."
Teen pregnancy rates began to rise in 2006 after a 10-year period of decline, according to the most recent data from the state Department of Health and Environmental Control.
In August, the state Budget and Control Board ordered a 3 percent across-the-board cut for agencies, leaving the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services, the agency responsible for Medicaid, with a $28.5 million loss in state funds. Since those dollars are matched by federal money, the losses for the state will total about $90 million, Stensland said.
MAPPS is the only program to be eliminated in the face of the cuts, he said. Medicaid is also reducing its reimbursement rate, which could make it harder for patients to find physicians willing to accept them. And the number of pills patients receive in their monthly prescriptions was reduced to 31 from 34.
Stensland said that the program was chosen for elimination because a lot of the services provided are not covered under traditional Medicaid.
Reach Jill Coley at 937-5719 or jcoley@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 41 comment(s)
Posted by LadyM on September 26, 2008 at 5:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't that great! Our government can bailout all their friends on Wall Street but doesn't have the money for critical programs like this one. It just goes to show that our elected officials are more out of touch with us commoners then we suspected. Time to clean house in November!
Posted by LadyM on September 26, 2008 at 5:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I should have added that while we are expected to still spend millions of dollars a year on illegal aliens, we can't take care of our own US citizens.....Just amazing isn't it!
Posted by moonpie on September 26, 2008 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
proletariat very nice post and so true. The gravy train IS DRYING UP!
Hey get your brats in a church some where and they'll teach them this for FREE!
MOONPIE, REPUBLICAN BECAUSE EVERYONE CAN'T BE ON WELFARE!
Posted by dogwoodroad on September 26, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They need to cut all of these extraneouos programs. They can't document success, and they waste money. The employees of these programs don't necessarily have to be laid off...programs such as this one just need to get their funding from private sources.
Posted by DoaMM on September 26, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love it..."But how will my child learn about sex after her third baby?"
It's not the government's job to raise your kid! Do it yourself or don't have kids...simple.
The 2nd American Revolution is probably coming sooner than some thought...
Posted by grannyofseven_2 on September 26, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What is that old saying "I work and pay taxes so you can stay on wefare"
Posted by RTC on September 26, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These young people are very much aware of how pregnancy occurs. It is not the taxpayer's responsiblity to teach them how to prevent it. This is the job of the parents and/or guardians.
Now, Medicaid needs to stop paying for the births of these babies, stop providing WIC and welfare checks, and then maybe these kids might think twice before sharing the love.
Leave Medicaid for those that truly deserve it, like our elderly and handicapped, or chronically ill individuals.
Derail the train, and maybe no one will continue to buy tickets.
Posted by grannyofseven_2 on September 26, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
.I feel that the Welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and WIC should be for those who are working, and only making minimum wage. Only to help supplement what they bring home. Not a free ride for those who can’t keep their legs closed
Posted by grannyofseven_2 on September 26, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry didn’t finish what I was saying. Those who can't keep their legs closed and prefer staying home watching Jerry Springer and soaps
Posted by sc4peace on September 26, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's so funny how some of these girls will have an abortion because the "Government" shouldn't be able to decide what a woman can do with her body, but the same one's will gladly take the governments money to get birth control. Medicaid is abused like Welfare- but, if you are going to cut something out of the Medicaid package, please pick something else for God's sake!!!!- I cannot even imagine what Medicaid will be spending on births next year. Make these women have a co-pay or something and the father should be held liable for half of the medical bills...
Posted by martin on September 26, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Forest Alton and LadyM need to THINK.
If the teen pregnancy rate started going up in 2006, then one could infer that this program STOPPED working 1 or 2 years prior. This is EXACTLY the type of program you do away with. The numbers have proven it is ineffective.
Early, please call DSS and find out about TANF (the old AFDC) benefits. They are nothing near what you are misinformed. I know it is capped at 2 children and believe the benefit is less than $200 per child. This is thanks to Bill Clinton’s welfare reform. DSS would be happy to explain these programs to you.
Also, 40 years into these programs, learn the difference between Medicaid and Medicare. Medicare is Federal health insurance for the elderly and disabled and in contingent on receiving Social Security Retirement or Disability benefits. Medicaid is basically a health insurance program with Federal and State funding. It serves low income children and the elderly (like for nursing home care). It pays for crazy things like this prevention program, too.
Posted by katrenavantassle on September 26, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Early, where are you getting the wrong information? Welfare doesnt pay $550.00 a month per child.
I do not condone give away money or services to those who are not in need and do not qualify. But alot of young women have been raised in homes with BAD FATHERS. Fathers that are in general good men, but never are there for them, or abusive alcoholics etc. This is the statistic that leads them to promiscurity and becoming single mothers. They start out looking for the love from a man that they never had as a child, falling into the arms of the first slug they meet. Then later find themselves with child and alone. They need help with day care to get back on their feet. That is a good service available from DSS. But they have to have a job to qualify for it. It isnt free!! DSS only pays for part of the total cost, leaving the single parent to recover the remaining balance.
So my opinion is the FATHER's in America are not now, or never have been doing their jobs in helping raising their families and that is why so many single mothers are around these days and the ending of the traditional family. Our sorry economy makes mothers work full-time now and we do not live in a "LEAVE IT TO BEAVER" world any longer. Sure you can lead them on the path of goodness, but they are so longing to be loved that the fall off the path at the first sight of temptation. You people keep commenting on the illegal aliens in town, well this may be true, but I will tell you one thing...How many White American men do you see pushing a stroller with kids in tow, or sitting with their kids while their wife gets her hair done????? RIGHT!!! NO, American men wouldn't be caught dead doing that. They would tell their wife that "she" better find a sitter so she can go do whatever it is. Period!!!
Another thing, It bothers me that you hypocritical typist call everything "Welfare". Get the facts straight on what assistance program you are referring to, and you may was well just go to the Dept.of Social Services website and learn a thing or two so you can shut up bad mouthing all the people who need help. Without these services the children would be the ones to suffer. God Forbid any of you should ever need any help.
Posted by sc4peace on September 26, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll be honest- I had my daughter young, 19 actually...I was in a relationship with her father, but I was stupid enough to believe it wouldn't happen to me. Yeah well it did. So for everyone to know- I had assistance-I developed my opinion based on the fact that I put myself through college while on the assistance, graduated with honors, got a job with benefits, bought my first home and my first car. I didn't say poor me and pop out more babies for the taxpayers to pay for. To this day, I still get calls from my former case worker telling me that I can still have my daughter on Medicaid because I make within the income brackets- I told her no thanks, she is insured through me- I could have saved 160.00 per month, but I am so proud to pay that every month because I know I am taking care of my responsibilities and not all of my fellow taxpayers. Katrenavantassle-My point is don't act like everyone doesn't know what it is like to need it- but they should not be abusing it and I see so many that are. If they didn't have those benefits available, I probably wouldn't have what I have now, but I would never blame the government because I made my choices and I had to deal with them.
Posted by sc4peace on September 26, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
teaching only abstinence in schools will not work- take a look at one of our possible vice-presidents situation- I'm just sayin :)
Posted by iceman1978 on September 26, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's see. $400,000 per year in funding to help prevent teen pregnancy vs who knows how many millions in funding each year to pay for public assistance when teenagers do make babies they can't care for. I'm not a math whiz, but I think that the $400k is a lower number, and that prevention of teen pregnancy is going to save the taxpayers over the long run.
Sure, you can say that need to keep their legs closed and their pants zipped. I agree with the whoel abstinence until marriage thing. (or at least wait until you're older and developed psychologically and not just physically) But let's face it. Most teenagers don't think this way. When you're young you think you can do anything (and oftentimes do) and are not thinking about the long term effects of decision making.
So if spending $400k of my tax dollars to help prevent a teen pregnancy which is going to cost me over the course of a few years, I would say the $400k is money well spent.
Posted by ironhorse on September 26, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let 'em starve newt, let 'em starve.
Posted by ironhorse on September 26, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am pro-life and NOT pro-death!.
The young women need to focus on their future and not the attention they get by “giving it up” and the young men need to understand the vagina is not a clown car.
Posted by wjhamilton3 on September 26, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Non profit and church agencies I know are working as hard as they can now. There is a limit to what volunteers can do and how much money you can raise.
I had a family call me last week that is seeking long term care for an adult grandchild with a severe mental illness and mental retardation problem. I've been involved with this family for twenty years as an attorney.
Grandma and Grandad are now in their 70s and in failing health. They can't control or manage their 22 year old grandson's illness. The parents have disappared and had serious mental problems of their own. They shouldn't have had a child, but it is a bit late to do anything about that now.
This is a very strong and potentially agressive young man who must have medication and will accept it only from someone who is strong and has leverage over him.
These people had called every agency, church and non profit group they could find. The Mental Retardation people begged off saying his mental illness kept him from being a candidate. The Mental Illness people who did short term, acute care only. Everbody was full, unavailable or broke.
I suppose the conservatives have a quick, simple cheap answer to this. We'll blame the grandparents for deciding to have a daughter back in 1970, who turned out to be retarded. She had a child with someone she met on the street. Maybe she should have had an abortion, but she kept the pregnancy a secret until it was too late because she wanted the child. DSS took her child from her and give it to her parents when this boy was 5 months old.
The grandparents will become sick and die. The boy will end up in prison, jail or dead when they can't take care of him any longer. If he lives, prison will cost the state of South Carolina tens of thousands of dollars a year, a lot even if it is one of the lowest costs per prisoner in the US.
You can be Christians or Fascists, but you are going to have to pick one or the other.
Posted by sc4peace on September 26, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's like being caught between a rock and a hard place- you don't want the mothers and fathers abusing the system- but yet how can you turn down assistance for an innocent child who has no fault in the situation? What's really sad is the fact that the children learn to live this way and continue the cycle. You have to draw a line somewhere and that's a hard line to find
Posted by ironhorse on September 26, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Newt,
All women have a choice to be a mother or not. Men do not have a choice to be a father or not.
An abortion can happen without the sperm donor's say, taking away his ability to be a father.
A women can choose not to have an abortion against the sperm donor's wishes, forcing him to be a father.
It is the fact that men DO NOT have a say that makes abortion a discriminatory practice.
What a stupid analogy on your part....you ASK if I'll take them into my home but the government TELLS me to pay for them through taxes.
Posted by willbillbedamned on September 26, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ironhorse, your response to newt is one of the stupidest things I've read in these forums and I've read a bunch. A man can choose NOT to be a father by keeping his dick in his pants. Those of you who are anti-choice show no compassion for the child who is born because the parents screwed up. In another post above, you suggest letting the child starve. I hope someday you or some one you love,if you can love,is in need of assistance. I also hope you get it and maybe then your eyes will be opened.
Posted by forget on September 26, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ironhorse - a man CAN choose whether or not to be a father. There are a few ways. Abstaining is one, condom use everytime you get withing a foot of a woman is another, a monogamous relationship with someone that is on a reliable birth control (one that is trustworthy to BOTH of you).
Posted by grannyofseven_2 on September 26, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How do you get your point across, when you name call anyone who has a difference of opinion?
Posted by ironhorse on September 26, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WILLBILL,
It's pro life or pro death.
Terms like pro choice or anti-choice work well when looking at a menu.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on September 26, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I posted this yesterday.Isn't this statement an oxymoron- "For the first time in the last 15 years, teen pregnancy rates have increased. At a time like this, we should be increasing our investment in young people, not cutting programs that have proven effective."
How has the curent program been PROVEN effective?The statistics don't support that.One of the problems is no one wants sex ed taught down the middle.People want either a screw who you want it's your body even if your only 12,heres some condoms and BC pills your parents won't know about.Or Jesus says no.You can't teach just one side.Whats wrong with teaching that it's wrong to do?(not in a biblical sense type of teaching)But just that young bodies are NOT built for sex.If you choose to have sex you risk pregnancy and disease.You will be physically overused by the time you're 21.Bottom line teach that it's slutty and uncool.Teach that there are ways to protect yourself,but it's gambling with your life.
Posted by ironhorse on September 26, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Newt wrote "It takes two to tango, but only one that carries the burden for life!"
Thanks for reminding me......now I don't have to worry about a thing.
I think I'll go golfing now.
Posted by eyfigueroa on September 26, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've not seen one suggestion from anyone who advocates the suspension of these programs any real & viable solutions.
I understand that many of you believe (and perhaps rightly so) that this out-of-pregnancy/welfare issue is primarily an issue for people of color. I get that. And perhaps that is what makes it so much easier for you to arbitrarily demand for the removal of such programs and not be overly concerned of the consequences to innocent (regardless of parentage they are innocent) children.
However not one of you have given a valid suggestion as to what to do with the children that are born to these people. We want to do away with: Medicaid, Free Lunch, Housing, Cash Benefits
I’m with EVERYONE on the desire to stop waste and abuse. I also agree that we’ve become somewhat of an entitlement society. However I’m not interested in seeing children suffer.
Sure there will always be charitable organizations to help, but this is not the 1920s or even the 1980s (time of last market crash). There are over 300 million people living in this country and there are simply not enough charities with enough resources that can help ALL of the children that are suddenly on the street. The removal of children from there homes and hoping for adoption isn’t the answer either because minority children are NOT adopted they languish in an underfunded and understaffed ‘system’ that does nothing but prepare kids for disaster.
“African American children who come into contact with the child welfare system are disproportionately represented in foster care, and are less likely than children of other racial and ethnic groups to move to permanency in a timely way. These children account for 15 percent of the U.S. child population but, in FY2006, they represented 32 percent of the 510,000 children in foster care. Black children, as well as Native American children, also have lower rates of adoption than those of other races and ethnicities (U.S. DHHS, 2008a; U.S. GAO, 2007).” http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/researc...
Before I advocate for the mass dislocation and suffering of minority children, I would like to see a long-term comprehensive plan implemented to stop the abuse of entitlement plans. I also want to see a similar plan developed to assist the children of families that fall under said program(s).
AGAIN, I totally agree that the system is broken and if not stopped and COMPLETELY revamped we will lose ANOTHER generation of children that otherwise could have been productive citizens in society.
But obviously it will take people far smarter than those of us who post on this site to figure out how to make it happen.
Posted by ed52 on September 26, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
how dare the state pull funds from another failed government program! its george bush's fault!
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on September 26, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I should've added that I don't agree with ending this program.But it clearly needs to be revamped and a new approach tried.Teen pregnancy may be higher in certain ethnic groups,but this is NOT just a black or Hispanic problem.This problem crashes through all stereotypes and economic levels.
Posted by KidYendor on September 26, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is time once again to discuss sterilization as a means of controlling unwed motherhood. We need to tell young girls it will be mandatory to undergo sterilization after the second child to remain a welfare state member. Cuts in WIC are also another good tool to make sure that unwed motherhood will be difficult and not totally government supported. Nothing makes me sicker than watching teens pull off WIC vouchers while buying 35 cans of Infamil. With trace amounts of drugs already in the water supply can we inject birth control fluids in school water fountains? What affect would that have on the boys?
Posted by iceman1978 on September 26, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll say this once regarding my belief on the abortion issue. At the root of the pro-life movement is the control over women. At the root of the pro-choice movement is the survival of women in being able to plan for their future. That is my belief on the issue.
---------
"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” -Ayn Rand (Excerpt from “Of Living Death” in The Objectivist, October 1968)
Posted by Carolina_Politics on September 26, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good, another social welfare program and non-essential government nanny role that we can scrap and save the hard working taxpayers some money. It's not the function of government to take the place of parental responsibility. That's what this comes down to. Parents are responsible for teaching these lessons to their kids, nobody else.
http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com/20...
Posted by iceman1978 on September 26, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Carolina, I completely agree with you, but in many cases the parents simply don't do this. When parents don't assume this responsibility their children will oftentimes have children.
When this happens, what do we do then? If you have zero social safety net, you run the risk that they're going to turn to crime. (Many of them turn to crime anyway) Children born to teenage mothers are already at a big disadvantage in life as it is. As they get older, and if they turn to crime, or if mom or dad turn to crime when there's no way for them to scrape by, they will get arrested and be sent to prison. Who pays for prison?
Bottom line. I would rather pay for the preventative programs to try and put a stop to this mess than to continue paying through the nose on other programs.
Personally, I would say that the only proper place of the State is to finance contraceptives and make them available to anyone who wants them. In the event of a teen pregnancy, I would have no problem with the State offering only to pay for an abortion.
Posted by iceman1978 on September 26, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
spankerbuns, I know how you feel. Be careful what you wish for though. Remember, we'll be suffering too.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on September 26, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Self control is a lesson that should be taught from an early age,it's priceless.
Posted by katrenavantassle on September 26, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
KidYender, there is not any quick fix for this.
The comment you made about sterilization after two kids... If not sterilized then no more hospital bills paid after two deliveries. Limit it to two children per family. That is plenty of children for any family these days.
Posted by scienceguy on September 26, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are successful pregnancy prevention programs in the State of South Carolina--just not the ones that are getting most of the money--Heritage Community Services and PIE. Read about one successful program at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_repor....
Posted by algorelost on September 26, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great weekend of football coming up.
UGA Bama
Skins Cowboys
Make sure you go to www.lowcountrysportsbook.com before
you play any action this week
Posted by 512c on September 26, 2008 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
shame we are bailing out wall street when main street needs the money
Posted by KidYendor on September 26, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I saw on the news where sterilization is being discussed in Louisiana, I believe. Sterilization after two government dependent births is not draconian and should be federal law. Thank you Katrena. Welfare dependent women refusing sterilization after two unwed births will be taken out of the system because our country is broke financially and we can't afford more unwed motherhood. It is a simple choice: sterilize or pay for the raising of your children. What is wrong with that?
Posted by iceman1978 on September 26, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kid, I googled that and you are correct. A politician from Metarie, Louisiana has proposed that they pay $1,000 as an incentive to get sterilized.
http://current.com/items/89336318_propos...
I can understand where he is coming from on this. His point is valid in that he fears Louisiana could be facing an economic catastrophe if the percentage dependent on the government is not brought down. Also, what happens when the percentage of the population not able to sustain themselves in the absence of government assistance become the majority?
I'm not trying to minimize this as an issue because I think that this too is going to become a huge social problem one day, and in many parts of the country it already is; but the money spent on food stamps, WIC, etc. pales in comparison to the proposed bailout of Wall Street.
Welfare is welfare as far as I'm concerned, and I have a certain degree of disdain for both. If you can't take care of children, don't have them and don't get someone knocked up. How simple is that?
Likewise, if your venture is worth its salt, it needs no government subsidy. If your company goes under due to mismanagement? Tough. Let the government finance unemployment benefits for your employees rather than to bail you out.