Testimony Presenting LD 1196

Today I testified in support of a piece of legislation I co-sponsored, L.D. 1196 An Act To Clarify Assistance for Persons with Acquired Brain Injury. Below is my testimony:

Good afternoon, Senator McCormick, Representative Strang-Burgess and distinguished colleagues of the Joint Standing Committee on Health and Human Services, I am Matt Peterson and I represent District 92 which includes the Oxford County towns of Andover, Byron, Roxbury, and Rumford, as well as the Franklin County communities of Weld and plantations of Rangeley and Sandy River plus the unorganized territories of West Central Franklin and Madrid Township. I am here today as a co-sponsor to support L.D. 1196 An Act To Clarify Assistance for Persons with Acquired Brain Injury.
I want to commend my colleague and friend, Representative Goode for submitting this important piece of legislation and thank him for asking me to join him as a co-sponsor of this significant initiative.

As you have already heard, this proposal amends existing statutory language to more fully recognize both the issues and the appropriate responses to acquired brain injury, something which, unfortunately impacts many Maine citizens and their families. I know you will hear more in a few minutes from the advocates and those with greater expertise on this significant health issue, but let me just point out that it is very appropriate for us to make these changes as a means to recognize not only the severity of acquired brain injury and its impacts on our citizens and Maine families, but also suggest that the state has an ongoing role to play in identifying and providing resources to mitigate the impacts of this condition on our people.

One of the tragic consequences of our recent involvement in the asymmetrical conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq has been a sharp increase in the number of returning service personnel who are coming home with an acquired brain injury as a result of their service to our country. The growth in frequency of acquired brain injury among our service members has led to a greater recognition of the impact of this condition on many other citizens who must deal with the consequences of the condition in their everyday lives.

This expanded recognition is another important step in coming to grips with the impacts that acquired brain injury has on the lives of Maine citizens and families. Representative Good’s proposal moves us a step along the path of assisting our citizens in facing and dealing creatively with this condition by acknowledging both new approaches to assisting individuals impacted by acquired brain injury, as well as preserving their rights, especially in instances where those rights may have been suspended as a result of the appointment of a guardian by the courts.

I am sure we all want the best for these citizens, and LD 1196 is another important step toward meeting that goal. I will not take up more of the Committee’s time unless you have questions for me. I look forward to working with you during our work session on this LD.

Update From Augusta -- Getting Our Facts Straight

The River Valley leads the way in many different areas -- not just in football and wrestling. We are somewhat an epicenter for land based wind energy development in Maine. There is something about the area that has made it attractive to grid scale wind developers with projects having been proposed in a number of communities within the River Valley including Byron, Roxbury and Rumford. The proposed projects are in various stages of planning, permitting and development -- and the road thus far has not been a particularly straight path.

Earlier this week, there was a public hearing on legislation I introduced -- L.D. 1035 “Resolve, To Establish Baseline Information on Health Impacts from Grid-scale Wind Energy Development.” This proposed legislation embodies my intent to create a better framework and process that will help policy makers on the state and local levels access a set of commonly accepted facts about wind power health effects, based on a consideration of peer-reviewed studies rather than speculation and assertions which had not been rigorously reviewed.

We’ve all heard the old expression “You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.” In our Google culture, it seems there has been a real proliferation of pseudo-science. Self proclaimed experts appear on every corner of “Internet Avenue”, and it can be daunting sorting out the facts from the claims.

The foundation for most modern science and particularly the practice of medicine is intended to strike the balance between consumer safety and innovation. For example, without the acceptance of peer-reviewed studies as the basis for decision-making in medicine we would still be seeing patent medicines being sold with dubious results but out-sized claims. A factual foundation -- based on widely accepted, tested and peer-reviewed studies -- should also be the foundation for judging the health impacts of wind generation facilities.

It is precisely on this issue that the Rumford Board of Selectmen has been working for more than a year, with a contentious local debate and election that resulted in the rejection of a citizen committee drafted local ordinance. After that vote in November, Rumford went back to the process of drafting an ordinance -- and those discussions are continuing.

I believe all these deliberations could be better served by having access to a state-identified and recommended database of information and a set of conclusions based on peer-reviewed scientific studies. Our local officials do a great job sorting through the many challenges they face, particularly in these difficult economic times. However, like my colleagues in the citizen legislature -- they are not generally scientists, so need to be able to make decisions based on a factual foundation that has been examined and vetted by people who are qualified to make such a judgment.

That is my goal with this legislation. I think that people of Maine are better served if they can make decisions based on facts -- especially if those facts have been examined and vetted by experts that we support with our tax dollars and who are charged with the responsibility of serving our citizens. That is why an interagency task force, as envisioned in this proposed legislation, seems like the right approach.

Like all of my legislative colleagues, my goal remains to represent the District to the best of my ability. The only way I know to do that is to be sure that the elected officials and voters in our District have access to the best possible information so they can make informed decisions about the future of the River Valley. I have great confidence in the thoughtfulness of my neighbors and I believe they are very capable of making intelligent and informed choices if they have access to the facts. The goal of this initiative is to empower people to make thoughtful and informed choice.

As of this writing, I don’t know what the outcome of the Legislative initiative will be. Some folks thought the proposal went too far, others didn’t think it went far enough. That is the political and legislative process and it is not different from the discussion about wind power we have been having for the last several years here in the River Valley. At the end of the day -- making decisions based on some facts, particularly commonly held facts, seems better than flipping a coin, especially if we have to live with the impacts of a bad decision for many years.

In other news, I’m pleased to report that last week members of the Agriculture, Forestry and Conservation Committee gave their support to legislation I sponsored and wrote about in a previous column. LD 109, “Resolve To Establish the Commission to Study the Promotion and Expansion of the Maine Maple Sugar Industry” received a unanimous ought to pass committee report and now moves to the House and Senate chambers for a vote by the full bodies.

I’m always interested in hearing from you with feedback, thoughts, ideas or concerns. Please contact me by e-mail at petersonhouse08@gmail.com, or call me at (207) 776-8051.

Update From Augusta

One of the things that is most gratifying as a legislator is being able to work with constituents to identify and solve problems. I was pleased when an Andover resident and member of the SAD 44 school committee came to me with a concern about a bill that was passed in the last legislature that directed school districts to use student social security numbers to track performance through school and beyond in the workplace, creating what is called a “longitudinal study.” The bill passed without much debate and I voted for the initiative.

The statute contains provisions that seek consent from parents, and ultimately students who have attained maturity while in the system, to collect and use the information. It also gives the authority to the Commissioner of Education to sanction school systems that do not comply by withholding the state subsidy payment -- a pretty large stick to discourage non-compliance by local districts.

It was only after the initiative moved forward to implementation at the local level that issues and concerns began to be raised. While the parental notification / opt in provision seemed to be an adequate protection, this notification coming usually at the beginning of the school year, and often included with other parental notifications and permissions -- often combined to achieve administrative efficiencies -- may blunt the thoughtful consideration of the issue by parents. I live in a household with four public school students -- and I understand the welter of paperwork that faces even the most conscientious parents, so careful consideration of the implications of such requests can be daunting.

In researching this initiative I had the opportunity to have some discussion with people familiar with research methodologies, longitudinal studies and privacy issues before I made the determination to introduce this measure. Those discussions helped me shape a bill and informed my support for this initiative. Here are some of the things I learned from those conversations.

First, the value of this data is questionable, especially if the data sets are not comprehensive. One experienced researcher told me that collection of such longitudinal data sets is valuable only if it is truly comprehensive. In other words, only if we have 100% or close to it participation, could conclusions from the analysis of this data be truly useful. When students / parents choose not to “opt-in” in significant numbers, and especially when entire districts refuse to comply, the data sets become increasingly less comprehensive and therefore less reliable.

When data sets like this are unreliable, other methods -- like random sampling of participants -- become a more reliable means to measure real outcomes for policy formation because you can control variations in the sampling. Working from partial and self-selected data sets such as those produced by an opt in system has limited value. The researcher indicated that the value of the data is better than an internet poll or a call-in poll / vote -- but not that much better without a careful, ongoing and expensive analysis of the underlying data. Random sampling may produce more reliable outcomes and have no greater cost than validating the collected data.

If the value of the underlying data is questionable, what are the potential downsides to collecting this information? It turns out there are many downsides. The most obvious is the potential for compromising people’s personal information -- especially social security numbers. Correlating a social security number with a name and address (which is likely in this data collection scheme) is the foundation for identity theft. This is the information that criminals seeks when they want to steal an identity as part of a larger criminal enterprise.

Collecting this data and building the database means that the state is liable in perpetuity to maintain the integrity and protect the data. I am sure we will receive assurances about the safety of this data -- but we have already seen too much about data systems that are likely more secure than this one will ever be that have been compromised. Is it really worth the risk? Are the rewards great enough to offset that potential downside? My answer is no, and that is why I have proposed this legislation.

There may be clarity about the intent for collecting this data today -- but what about 20 years from now? We don’t have any idea who will be able to access the information or for what reasons. I won’t spell out some of the more chilling implications of that train of thought -- but let’s remember that databases, once built, are enduring structures. If they aren’t built to endure, then they are even more likely to be compromised. If they are built to endure, than the data integrity must be maintained in perpetuity, or at least for the life of the participants. For that 6 year old who goes into the database today, we will need to insure the privacy and safety for at least 90 years or more. Is it worth the expense? Are we getting value for the investment?

In the end -- this is a simple cost benefit analysis. There is no doubt this information may have some value. The value may be limited based on the comprehensiveness of the information. In addition, there are other ways to gather comparable information that may not pose the same risks. It is our duty to protect our citizen’s right to privacy and the safety that comes with having personal information secure. Gathering this information is a big responsibility that will not go away and will become increasingly more difficult and expensive to maintain as people who seek this information for the wrong reasons become more sophisticated and determined. If that is the case, and I believe it is -- is this initiative worth it? Will our research outcomes be worth the investment and the potential risks?

I think not. That was the carefully considered conclusion of the leaders at SAD 44 -- and I agree with them.

Why were we elected anyway?

Some of the recent events and controversies in Augusta have people on both sides of the aisles scratching their heads and asking the fundamental question: Why were we elected? It’s a good question to be reminded about, but my answer is always the same in these conversations. I was elected to represent the people of the River Valley to the best of my abilities and I will continue to do that as long as I have the privilege to serve.

The days are getting longer and the tempers seem to be getting shorter -- a clear sign that it must be April in Augusta. Those who are urging more respect and civility seem to be winning the day – and I applaud their efforts. We need to keep alive that spirit and the willingness to compromise over the next few weeks as we enter difficult budget negotiations against the backdrop of our state’s fiscal problems. Working together, we can find solutions. We did in the last session, and I believe we can in this session as well.

While there are certainly people in both parties who are “hyper-partisan,” I find that most members of the Legislature are there to serve the people back home and do the very best they can. I will continue to work as hard as I can to collaborate with my colleagues whenever possible. We have a long way to go on budget matters to find solutions that can win broad support. The present proposals are far off the mark -- and that seems to go for both sides of the aisle. My Republican colleagues are as concerned about some initiatives as the Democrats.

In November, Maine voters sent a clear message -- they were ready for a change. Republican candidates sent a clear message, too -- we will bring change to Augusta. Republicans won the majorities because voters believed they could do a better job, it’s as simple as that. People believed that
Republicans who got elected would manage things more effectively. On the campaign trail, I often heard people say in talking about candidates, "Let a businessperson do it," as though business has the answers when it comes to good management.

Better management and new ideas is exactly what I want to see, too. I am convinced we can do a better job and manage our resources more carefully to provide high quality services with less waste and less duplication. It is one of the reasons I was such an enthusiastic supporter of Governor LePage’s nominee for Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services, Mary Mayhew. I believe that Commissioner Mayhew brings new management skills and insight to the position. She is focused and energized and is capable of excelling in the job. I want to help her do just that -- manage the giant state human services bureaucracy more thoughtfully and more cost-effectively on behalf of taxpayers. In a future column, I hope to talk about some specifics and work I am undertaking in my dialogue with Commissioner Mayhew.

Beyond that, I keep waiting for those “new ideas,” and unfortunately I haven’t seen too many yet. As I said above, I know we can do a better job with our expenditures in health and human services. To that end, I have proposed some direction in a systems change bill that will be debated later in the session -- but I am still waiting to see those better approaches from the administration. Unfortunately, this budget is balancing the state's finances on the backs of working families, poor people, old people, people with disabilities, and public service men and women; teachers, firefighters, and police. Those are not particularly new ideas; they have been around for a very long time. The other way this budget balances is on the backs of Maine’s municipalities and the local property taxpayers. There’s nothing new or innovative there either.

Where are the new management initiatives? Where is the reorganization or consolidation to create efficiency? Where are the new ideas? How will we create new jobs? How will we better educate our children? How will we care for our aging parents? That’s what I want to work on and vote to support.

The legislative session is a work in progress and the budget is at its core. It’s always hard to see the end of the process from this vantage point, but I am sure it will finally arrive.

In the meantime, the next few weeks we will be having more lively debates. Changes in state policy around promoting and regulating wind power projects have been proposed in a number of bills. In the River Valley, we know first-hand how passionate those discussions can become. I expect the same for the hearings in Augusta.

Other details and proposals for welfare reform, regulatory relief and a host of other issues will be hotly debated. In the end, I am confident we can chart a course that will serve the very best interests of Maine people. At least we have the Whoopee Pie / Blueberry Pie vote behind us -- so we’ve proven we can compromise. Let’s hope those lessons carry over to other key policy choices.

Former President of the American Medical Association Says Maine Should Be 'Ashamed' for Sanctioning MMA

In today's issue of the Portland Press Herald, the former President of the American Medical Association and Southern Maine resident, Dr. Robert McAfee, wrote that Maine should be "ashamed" for legalizing and regulating the sport of Mixed Martial Arts. With only a little over three weeks until Maine's first sanctioned MMA event and as the prime sponsor of the legislation that brought the sport to our state--I was a little disheartened to read the Dr.'s opinion this morning.

Ariel Helwani, one of the hardest working and most respected journalists in MMA, was good enough to interview me and blog about Dr. McAfee's position. Read what Ariel had to say about Dr. McAfee's editorial here.