TAMPA — As a Hillsborough County commissioner from 1988 to 1996, Phyllis Busansky helped lead the charge to approve a half-cent sales tax to pay for medical care for the county's uninsured.
The program, launched in 1992, has been heralded as a national model, so naturally Busansky uses it as a selling point in her campaign materials.
Busansky said she got her $100-million savings figure from the county's Health and Social Services Department. After several calls and much searching, the department dug up a report that supports Busansky's claim.
The analysis is 11 years old and covers only 1993 through 1997.
Hillsborough HealthCare, which has been tweaked since its creation to prevent budget shortfalls, replaced an old fee-for-service system where the county paid local hospitals for medical treatment provided to poor people without insurance. The current program offers basic health insurance coverage to lower-income residents who can't get it someplace else.
To calculate the savings, the county compared the actual cost of the new program to projected costs of the old program, based on increased prices in medical services and a bump in the number of people covered.
That analysis determined that the program saved taxpayers $107-million as of 1997. But the department has not done any similar evaluation since then, making it difficult to prove or disprove Busansky's claim.
We didn't have all the data available to us that the county used in its report, but PolitiFact tried to estimate the costs of both programs using the rate of medical inflation and county population increases.
The county spent $35-million on indigent health care in 1990. Based on inflation and population growth, the old program, had it continued, would have cost about $78.5-million in 2000, a year when the county actually spent about $75.6-million on Hillsborough HealthCare. That's a savings of $3-million.
In 2007, using the same formula, the old program would have cost $155-million when the county actually spent about $84.3-million with the new plan. That's a savings of $70.7-million.
Busansky states that she "established" the new program. While certainly its champion, her statement glosses over the fact that she was one of six commissioners who voted to enact it.
And today, she cannot prove its total savings. It might have saved more than indicated in Busansky's campaign literature; it might have saved less. Without access to recent data, we can't say — and neither can Busansky — that the $100-million savings is still accurate.
For those reasons, we rate the statement Half True.