EDITORIAL: The curious case of Gov. Dunleavy’s blood bank veto

Among the many line-item vetoes issued by Gov. Mike Dunleavy in his signing of Alaska’s capital budget, the half-million dollar reduction in funding for the Blood Bank of Alaska barely registers. The governor made many larger reductions to other items — $2.6 million from trail improvement projects, $15 million from a skilled nursing facility in Anchorage, and $3 million from Alaska Housing Finance Corporation’s home weatherization assistance program are just a few of the bigger-ticket cuts to capital projects. But the $500,000 blood bank cut is notable for how inexplicable it is — its impact on the state’s fiscal picture is minuscule, and it endangers an important service that literally saves lives.

There was little in the way of an explanation for the governor’s blood bank veto — just the same boilerplate “preserve general funds for savings and fiscal stability” rationale that would hold more water if Gov. Dunleavy weren’t trying to curry favor by shipping oversized Permanent Fund dividend checks out of the state treasury in election years. And lawmakers didn’t receive any more information, even those in Dunleavy’s own party. Sen. Cathy Giessel, a former nurse, said she had “not heard a specific rationale at all” and pointed out the fact that insofar as savings and fiscal stability are concerned, the operating and capital budgets included a surplus before the governor got out his red pen. Giessel, understandably, was upset, as the funding reduction leaves a major blood bank project — a testing lab that will keep Alaska from having to ship blood Outside for disease testing, as is currently the case — not completely funded and at risk.

Based on policy priorities, Blood Bank of Alaska seems like exactly the kind of service the governor would be keen to support. The nonprofit is doing work as a supplier for hospitals and clinics statewide that, in its absence, would likely have to be taken over by government because of its essential nature. That would certainly have a detrimental impact on the preservation of general funds for savings and fiscal stability, and growing the size of government also runs counter to the governor’s political philosophy. The blood bank is a private nonprofit serving a vital community need, largely without government support. Small-government conservatives should be thankful this need is being met by the private sector, rather than the Department of Health.

And beyond politics, the importance of the blood bank and its mission seem abundantly clear. As a blood supplier for the state’s health care facilities, the nonprofit’s services are essential in the event of natural disasters or mass casualty situations, as Alaska’s distance from the Lower 48 make the logistics of blood delivery in a crisis daunting, to say the least. And the project that Gov. Dunleavy vetoed a half-million dollars from helps serve that goal of self-sufficiency: Currently, blood is flown from Alaska to a lab in Minneapolis to test for viruses like HIV/AIDS and the West Nile virus before it can be supplied to Alaska health care facilities. Even in the best of circumstances, that adds delay to the process. And in disaster situations — such as a major blizzard that disrupted the shipping of blood to the Midwest for more than a week — the long transit can lead to perilous shortages in Alaska’s ready blood supply. Recognizing this, Blood Bank of Alaska is standing up its own testing lab so that the whole process can take place in-house. But with the state funding allocation reduced, the nonprofit is left hoping that somehow the stars will align and the shortfall will be made up via other means.

Fortunately, the relatively small gap between the funding the blood bank has and what it needs constitutes a potential opportunity for Alaska’s private and nonprofit philanthropic community to step in where the state has fallen short. A half-million dollars should be an achievable amount to support such a vital service.

Gov. Dunleavy’s blood bank veto, though small, is unlikely to make a meaningful savings difference for the state and could have serious negative effects on Alaska’s blood supply in a worst-case scenario. That’s penny-wise, pound-foolish budget logic, and a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative should know better than to take that risk.