www.thecentersquare.com – By Nolan McKendry | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 13:50:00
(The Center Square) − A proposed constitutional amendment would give Louisiana lawmakers new authority to remove jobs from the state’s protected civil service system, while also shortening terms and tightening limits for members of the State Civil Service Commission.
Under the current system, most rank-and-file state employees — like social workers at the Department of Children and Family Services or accountants at the Department of Transportation — are considered as part of the classified civil service.
These employees are hired based on merit, often through competitive exams, and enjoy job protections that shield them from political interference or arbitrary firing.
Others, such as agency heads, the governor’s staff or university presidents, are considered unclassified — appointed positions that serve at the pleasure of elected officials.
Currently, the state employs 37,000 full time classified employees and nearly 25,000 full time unclassified employees. State Civil Service has governing authority over classified employees only.
State agencies are required to submit annual performance evaluations to the Director of State Civil Service. From 2019 to 2024, the number of employees classified as unsuccessful grew from 1.09% to 1.26%. At the same time, employees deemed exceptional also grew from 13.65% to 14.78%, according to the State Civil Service’sannual report.
“Today, we need a system based more on merit,” Sen. Jay Morris, R-Grant, told the Senate & Governmental Affairs committee, adding that law currently “prioritizes seniority over performance, endless appeals and often court actions.”
A similar sentiment is shared at the federal level. Just last week, the Office of Personnel Management proposeda ruleto strengthen employee accountability, while addressing long-standing performance management issues in the federal workforce.
That proposed rule cites chapter 43 and 75 of U.S. civil service law, which govern how agencies handle poor performance and misconduct, are described as cumbersome and slow-moving — often ending in lengthy appeals with uncertain outcomes.
According to the rule, surveys suggest many supervisors lack confidence in their ability to remove employees for serious infractions, a dynamic critics say erodes the federal merit system’s commitment to high performance and accountability.
Morris’ amendment would allow the Legislature to remove positions from the classified service by law, potentially instituting a shorter leash for those employees.
The measure would also shorten the term of Civil Service Commission members — from staggered six-year terms to four years — and limit service to two full terms, eliminating an exception that allowed long-serving members to stay on.
The bill was not without opposition.
Though Berry Erwin, President and CEO of Council for a Better Louisiana, supports a more efficient civil service, “we’re also mindful of Louisiana’s history with political patronage — it’s been part of our past, part of our DNA. We recognize we’re no longer in that era, and times have certainly changed. But when we talk about reforming civil service, we think it’s important to strike a balance.”
Dr. Douglas Bordelon, an employee at the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, argued the bill threatens to replace objective public service with politically influenced employment practices, and he dismissed claims that converting jobs to unclassified status would lead to better pay.
“The solution to addressing this disparity is to ensure adequate funding of our positions, rather than converting us to unclassified civil servants,” Bordelon said.
Bordelon cautioned that the sweeping changes proposed in the bill could harm morale and make it harder for the state to attract and retain qualified employees.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
The article primarily reports on a legislative proposal in Louisiana regarding changes to the state’s civil service system, presenting viewpoints from both supporters and opponents of the amendment. While it maintains a largely factual tone, the inclusion of supportive statements from a Republican senator and references to similar federal initiatives to enhance worker accountability suggest a center-right leaning. However, it also fairly presents concerns from civil service advocates who warn against politicization and morale issues, which balances the coverage. Overall, the framing of the article leans moderately towards advocating for accountability and reform, typical of center-right perspectives on government efficiency, without overt ideological language or partisan bias. It is not purely neutral reporting, but rather subtly inclined towards a center-right stance.
SUMMARY: Two days after a five-alarm fire damaged the Gentilly Ridge Apartment complex in New Orleans East, some residents have been allowed to return home as power is restored and damage inspections continue. One building suffered extensive fire damage, while others mainly sustained water and smoke damage requiring mitigation before reentry. Residents express mixed emotions—thankfulness for spared homes and concerns over those displaced. About 23 people remain at the Joe Brown Recreation Center shelter, likely to move to hotels soon. Relief efforts include the Red Cross, local organizations providing aid, and a United Way fund supporting affected families with housing and essentials.
President Donald Trump’s new tax and spending law will cap Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals in over half the states, potentially reducing reimbursements by 10 percentage points annually starting in 2028. Critics warn this will strain rural hospitals already struggling financially, risking service closures like obstetrics and chemotherapy. Medicaid often covers only two-thirds of care costs, so extra state-directed payments have been vital for provider sustainability. The law aims to cut $149 billion from Medicaid over ten years, sparking concern among health groups. Some states, like Kansas and Mississippi, seek funds from a new Rural Health Transformation Program to offset losses, but uncertainties remain.
President Donald Trump’s new tax and spending law will likely force more than half the states to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals that treat Medicaid patients, a change critics warn will be particularly harmful to rural hospitals struggling to stay afloat.
Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for low-income people, reimburses doctors, hospitals and nursing facilities for treating enrollees. But in many cases, the program doesn’t fully cover the cost of care, straining providers that serve a large share of Medicaid patients.
To help providers cover losses and continue to serve poorer populations, the federal government allows the 41 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have contracted with Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) to run their Medicaid programs to direct them to pay providers more — in some cases, as much as commercial plans
Ultimately, taxpayers cover the costs of these so-called state directed payments — and those costs are growing. As of August 2024, the higher payments were projected to add $110.2 billion per year to Medicaid spending, nearly 60% more than the previous year’s projection.
That higher spending attracted the attention of conservatives on Capitol Hill.
Beginning in 2028, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will cap the payments, forcing state Medicaid programs to reduce reimbursement rates by 10 percentage points each year until they reach either 100% or 110% of what Medicare pays. States that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act would be capped at the lower rate.
The new law will reduce Medicaid spending by $149 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and reduce Medicaid provider payments in as many as 31 states, according to KFF, a health policy research group. A separate analysis by The Commonwealth Fund, another research group, found that Medicaid payments to hospitals would drop by at least 20% in 19 of the 25 states that had publicly available data.
Critics say the change could be disastrous for hospitals, many of them in rural areas, that see a large share of Medicaid patients.
“This is all on top of an already pretty strained financial situation for rural hospitals,” Alexa McKinley Abel, director of government affairs and policy at the National Rural Health Association, a group representing rural health care providers, said in an interview. “We are worried about seeing service line closures at hospitals in an environment where OB-GYN and chemotherapy service lines are already being cut.”
Covering the cost of care
Supporters of the change say the extra payments inflate federal spending on the Medicaid program, giving hospitals “windfall profits.”
“Not only do these programs sidestep the truly needy on Medicaid and favor special interests instead, but all this is financed by growing the federal debt, leading to inflation and higher interest rates for all Americans,” the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that helped draft the bill, stated in a policy brief.
Hospital leaders dispute that. Earlier this year, the American Hospital Association asserted that without the extra payments, Medicaid managed care organizations in 2023 only covered about two-thirds of the actual cost of care.
Cindy Samuelson, senior vice president of the Kansas Hospital Association, said the additional payments are especially critical in a rural state such as Kansas, where some researchers have found that 87% of rural hospitals are in the red. Kansas is one of 10 states that did not expand Medicaid, and like other nonexpansion states, it will have to begin reducing direct payments to 110% of what Medicare pays starting in 2028.
“Over time, commercial payers are paying less and less,” Samuelson said. “Many hospitals in our state are at risk of closure.”
Samuelson said that in rural areas, health care providers see fewer patients, which makes it hard to spread out the cost of care and make up for losses that come from serving underinsured, Medicaid and Medicare patients. One result is that rural hospitals are trimming services. A report published this year by Chartis, a health care consulting firm, found that between 2011 and 2023, nearly 300 rural hospitals across the country stopped offering obstetrics care, and 424 rural hospitals ceased chemotherapy services.
In Hutchinson, Kansas, Benjamin Anderson, CEO of the rural and community-owned Hutchinson Regional Health System, said his hospital barely broke even this year, and lower Medicaid payments will take a toll. The 190-bed hospital serves more than 65,000 people in the central Kansas region, and sees a lot of patients who are struggling with mental health issues and substance use disorders.
When we think about the cuts to Medicaid, it isn’t simply about cutting services to the poor. It’s threatening services to everyone.
– Benjamin Anderson, CEO of Hutchinson Regional Health System
“We are closely managing our workforce expenses. We’re going to be relying more heavily on philanthropy,” Anderson said, adding that the hospital wouldn’t lay off staff but would reduce the number of workers by not filling open positions.
He said his hospital has some cash reserves that should enable it to keep going, but that many other rural hospitals lack such a cushion.
“When we think about the cuts to Medicaid, it isn’t simply about cutting services to the poor. It’s threatening services to everyone, because in a rural community, we all get care in the same place,” he said. “If we cut out the safety net that’s sustaining these hospitals, everyone’s health care is threatened.”
Searching for answers
Three hours northeast of Hutchinson is the rural town of Holton, where about 3,400 people live. Holton Community Hospital is a 14-bed critical access hospital, meaning that it provides emergency care around the clock for a rural community. For the past two years, it has been struggling, according to Carrie Lutz, the hospital’s CEO.
Lutz said the hospital is not part of a broader health care group, and it relies on philanthropy and local taxes. Due to financial strains, it’s in the process of selling off its home and hospice services to another health care facility. The cap on extra payments will be an additional barrier, she said.
Samuelson said Kansas is applying for money under the five-year, $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program, which Congress added to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act amid concerns about its impact on rural hospitals. She expects Kansas to get at least $500 million between 2026 and 2030.
Rural hospitals in Mississippi also hope to tap into those funds. The Mississippi Hospital Association, which is advising state leaders on their application, said it expects Mississippi to get at least $500 million over the next five years.
Like Kansas, Mississippi did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care, a decision that deprived it of additional Medicaid patients and thus extra revenue.
“A few years ago, we had several rural hospitals that were facing some imminent closure challenges, and so our enhanced supplemental payment based on the average commercial rate has been a lifeline,” said Richard Roberson, president and CEO of the Mississippi Hospital Association.
“What we’re concerned about is that when those payments start to decrease, then we’re going to be right back to where we were in 2022, with concerns about rural hospitals again.”
Roberson said Medicaid, with the additional payments, had become “one of the best payers, if not the best payer, for our hospitals over the last two years,” and helped a lot of hospitals stay out of the red.
He said the new rural health care fund is promising, but noted that Mississippi will decide where to spend any money it gets, and some rural hospitals might miss out.
“We want to make sure we’re working with the state to provide sustainable solutions, not one-time fixes,” Roberson said. “The big wild card is the Rural Health Transformation fund and what the state chooses to do with that money.”
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Louisiana Illuminator, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
The content presents a critical view of a policy associated with a Republican administration, emphasizing the potential negative impacts of Medicaid payment cuts on rural hospitals and vulnerable populations. It highlights concerns from healthcare providers and advocates while also including conservative perspectives on fiscal responsibility. The overall tone leans toward concern for social welfare and healthcare access, common in center-left reporting, but maintains a balanced presentation by acknowledging opposing viewpoints.
SUMMARY: Lafayette is finally gaining momentum to tackle blight, with LEDA becoming a redevelopment authority for the Northside, new leadership at the Housing Authority, and property donations to nonprofits. However, sustained, large-scale commitment is needed to translate efforts into real social and economic improvements. Historically, Lafayette has lacked cooperation among developers, nonprofits, and government, hindering progress. Redevelopment costs are high, making market-driven solutions insufficient. Proposals include creating a land bank to clear titles on adjudicated properties, improving government processes to support developers, and establishing a substantial redevelopment fund. While challenging, Lafayette’s community has the potential to prioritize and drive meaningful change over time.
