Welcome to the InsightBit podcast, where we dive deep into the issues shaping health, human services, and policy across the United States. Today, we’re exploring a critical story out of Vermont: Governor Phil Scott’s veto of a bill aimed at overhauling the state’s homelessness response system. This decision has sparked heated debate, touching on public health, housing policy, and the ethical challenges of addressing a growing crisis. Let’s unpack the story, its implications, and the broader context, drawing on data, expert perspectives, and the voices shaping this conversation.
On June 12, 2025, Vermont Governor Phil Scott vetoed H.91, a bill that proposed a fundamental restructuring of the state’s approach to homelessness. The legislation would have dissolved the current motel voucher program, which provides temporary shelter in motels and hotels for unhoused Vermonters, and shifted funding and decision-making to five regional anti-poverty nonprofits and a statewide domestic violence organization. This regionalized, privatized model aimed to create a more integrated and efficient system, moving away from reliance on motel rooms—a program that has ballooned in cost and scope since the COVID-19 pandemic.
In his veto message, Scott, a five-term Republican, argued that H.91 “does not adequately reduce the size or cost” of the motel voucher program, which cost the state $44 million last year, compared to just $5 million in 2019. He emphasized the need for “real solutions” like building shelter capacity and requiring work, training, or treatment for program participants. The veto has left the motel program in its current form, with strict time limits and caps on rooms, and has deepened divisions over how Vermont should tackle its homelessness crisis, which has surged by over 300% since the pandemic began.
To understand this issue, we need to explore its roots in public health, housing policy, and social welfare, as well as the competing ideologies at play. Let’s start with the data and context driving this debate.
Homelessness is not just a housing issue—it’s a public health crisis. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Vermont’s homeless population grew from approximately 1,100 in 2019 to over 4,400 in 2024, a 300% increase. This spike aligns with national trends, where the National Low Income Housing Coalition reports that no state has an adequate supply of affordable housing for low-income renters. In Vermont, a severe housing shortage and rising costs—exacerbated by the pandemic—have left many without stable homes.
The health implications are dire. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes that unhoused individuals face higher risks of chronic diseases, mental health disorders, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis and hepatitis. A 2023 study in The Lancet found that unhoused populations have a life expectancy 20–30 years lower than the general population, with increased rates of hypertension, diabetes, and substance use disorders. In Vermont, where harsh winters amplify these risks, the motel voucher program has been a lifeline, providing temporary shelter to thousands. However, its high cost and temporary nature have sparked criticism.
The motel program, expanded during the pandemic with federal aid, housed over 2,000 Vermonters at its peak. But as federal funding dried up, the state imposed stricter eligibility rules, leading to waves of evictions. A 2024 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation highlights that such restrictions often exacerbate health disparities, as unstable housing disrupts access to healthcare, medications, and mental health services. For example, unhoused individuals with mental health conditions—estimated to be 20–25% of the homeless population, per the National Institute of Mental Health—are particularly vulnerable to losing care continuity when evicted from temporary shelters.
H.91 aimed to address these challenges by decentralizing Vermont’s homelessness response. The bill proposed transferring control of emergency shelter funds to regional nonprofits, which would also manage shelter construction and homelessness prevention programs. The state would retain oversight but delegate day-to-day operations to organizations with local expertise. Supporters, primarily Democrats, argued this would create a more holistic system, integrating shelter with services like job training, healthcare access, and domestic violence support.
The rationale was grounded in evidence. A 2022 study in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that coordinated, community-based interventions for homelessness—combining housing with wraparound services—reduced emergency room visits by 30% and improved mental health outcomes. Vermont’s proposed model aligned with this approach, aiming to move away from the motel program’s “band-aid” solution. Advocates also pointed to the inefficiency of motels, which often lack kitchens, communal spaces, or access to social workers, limiting residents’ ability to transition to permanent housing.
The bill’s supporters argued it would save money in the long run by reducing reliance on costly motel stays. They cited a 2024 analysis from the Vermont Agency of Human Services, which estimated that permanent supportive housing costs $15,000–$20,000 per person annually, compared to $30,000–$40,000 for motel vouchers. By investing in shelters and prevention, H.91 aimed to address the root causes of homelessness, like housing unaffordability and unemployment, while improving health outcomes.
Governor Scott’s veto reflects a conservative approach prioritizing fiscal restraint and personal responsibility. In his view, the motel program’s $44 million annual cost—up from $5 million pre-pandemic—is unsustainable. He argued that H.91 would increase spending, citing unspecified “millions” in additional costs, and failed to address the program’s inefficiencies. Scott has long advocated for downsizing the program, favoring solutions like shelter construction and mandatory work or treatment requirements.
This stance aligns with conservative principles emphasizing individual accountability and limited government spending. A 2021 report from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues that welfare programs like emergency housing can create dependency if not paired with work or training mandates. Scott’s call for such requirements reflects this philosophy, suggesting that enabling self-sufficiency is key to breaking the cycle of homelessness. He also emphasized building shelters, which could be more cost-effective than motels. For example, a 2023 study from the Urban Institute found that permanent shelters cost 20–40% less per person than temporary hotel-based programs.
Scott’s veto also highlights skepticism about privatization without clear cost controls. While H.91’s regionalized model involved nonprofits, it lacked guarantees that spending would decrease. Conservative commentators, such as those on X, have echoed Scott’s concerns, arguing that Vermont’s budget cannot sustain open-ended welfare programs amid rising taxes and economic pressures. They point to the state’s $1.2 billion general fund, where human services consume nearly 40%, per the Vermont Joint Fiscal Office, as evidence of the need for fiscal discipline.
Progressive advocates, including Democratic lawmakers and groups like End Homelessness Vermont, decried the veto as a missed opportunity. They argue that H.91’s regionalized approach would have created a more equitable and effective system, addressing the structural issues driving homelessness. Brenda Siegel, executive director of End Homelessness Vermont, warned that Scott’s decision leaves “vulnerable Vermonters with no options, no solution, and no hope,” especially as federal housing vouchers face potential cuts.
Progressives view homelessness as a systemic issue tied to housing unaffordability, stagnant wages, and healthcare access gaps. A 2024 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that federal housing assistance reaches only 25% of eligible low-income households, leaving states like Vermont to fill the gap. H.91’s supporters argued that regional nonprofits, with their local knowledge and service networks, are better equipped to deliver tailored solutions than a centralized state program. They also criticized the motel program’s time limits and evictions, which disrupt lives and exacerbate health issues. A 2023 New England Journal of Medicine article found that housing instability increases hospital readmissions by 15% for chronic conditions like diabetes.
Advocates like Siegel argue that Scott’s focus on work requirements ignores the barriers faced by unhoused individuals, such as mental health issues or lack of transportation. The National Low Income Housing Coalition reports that 70% of unhoused adults face employment barriers, including disability or caregiving responsibilities. Progressives contend that H.91’s integrated approach—combining shelter, healthcare, and job training—would have addressed these challenges more effectively than the status quo.
Public health experts and bioethicists offer nuanced views on the debate. Dr. Sarah Kimball, a health policy researcher at Boston University, argues that homelessness programs must prioritize health equity. “Unhoused individuals face disproportionate health risks, from frostbite to mental health crises,” she notes. “Motel programs provide immediate shelter but lack the infrastructure for long-term health improvements.” Kimball supports H.91’s model, citing evidence from programs like Boston’s Housing First initiative, which reduced healthcare costs by 25% by providing stable housing and medical support.
Bioethicists raise concerns about the ethical implications of Scott’s work and treatment requirements. Dr. Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at NYU, argues that mandating treatment can infringe on autonomy, especially for those with mental health conditions. “Forcing treatment without addressing housing stability often fails,” he says, citing a 2022 JAMA study showing that coerced treatment programs have a 60% dropout rate. However, he acknowledges that untreated mental health issues can perpetuate homelessness, creating a complex ethical dilemma.
Patient advocacy groups, like the National Coalition for the Homeless, emphasize the need for trauma-informed care. They argue that motel evictions, as seen in Vermont, can retraumatize individuals, worsening mental health outcomes. A 2024 survey by the coalition found that 80% of unhoused individuals reported increased anxiety after losing temporary shelter. These groups support H.91’s regionalized approach for its potential to integrate trauma-informed services.
Scott’s veto leaves Vermont’s motel program in limbo, with strict caps and time limits likely to continue evictions. The Vermont Agency of Human Services reports that 1,200 households were evicted from motels in 2024 due to tightened eligibility, a trend that could worsen health disparities. Nationally, the debate reflects broader tensions over homelessness policy. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness estimates that 580,000 Americans are unhoused on any given night, with states struggling to balance cost, compassion, and effectiveness.
The veto also highlights the political divide on social welfare. Conservatives, like Scott, prioritize fiscal restraint and self-reliance, while progressives push for systemic investments to address root causes. This divide is evident in national policy debates, such as funding for HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher program, which faces potential cuts under shifting federal priorities. A 2025 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis projects that reduced housing aid could increase homelessness by 10–15% in states like Vermont.
Ethically, the debate raises questions about society’s obligation to the unhoused. Should temporary shelter be a right, or a privilege tied to conditions like work? How do we balance individual autonomy with public health needs? These questions remain unresolved, but they underscore the need for evidence-based solutions that prioritize both health and dignity.
To address Vermont’s homelessness crisis, policymakers could consider hybrid approaches. First, expanding permanent supportive housing—combining affordable units with healthcare and job training—has proven effective. A 2023 HUD study found that such programs reduced homelessness by 20% in pilot cities. Vermont could allocate funds from its $44 million motel budget to build shelters, as Scott suggests, while maintaining some emergency vouchers for immediate needs.
Second, integrating health services into homelessness programs is critical. The CDC recommends embedding primary care and mental health services in shelters, citing a 30% reduction in emergency room visits in programs with on-site clinics. Vermont could partner with community health centers to implement this model, reducing costs and improving outcomes.
Finally, addressing the housing shortage is essential. The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates that Vermont needs 24,000 additional affordable units. Tax incentives for developers, as proposed in a 2024 Urban Institute report, could spur construction while preserving local control.
Governor Scott’s veto of H.91 has left Vermont at a crossroads. The motel voucher program, while imperfect, remains a critical safety net for thousands facing a housing and health crisis. The debate over H.91 reflects broader questions about how we address homelessness, balance budgets, and prioritize public health. As listeners, you’re part of this conversation. Consider how these policies affect your community, from healthcare access to housing costs. Explore the data, engage with local leaders, and form your own views on how we can build a more equitable future.
This is InsightBit, signing off. Stay informed, stay engaged, and let’s keep the conversation going.
#Healthcare #PublicHealth #Homelessness #Vermont #HousingCrisis #SocialServices #HealthEquity #MentalHealth #HousingPolicy #PublicPolicy #SocialWelfare #HealthDisparities #EmergencyShelter #MotelProgram #GovernorScott #H91 #AffordableHousing #Poverty #HealthAccess #Bioethics #TraumaInformedCare #HousingFirst #ChronicDisease #MentalHealthCare #PolicyDebate #FiscalResponsibility #Equity #CommunityHealth #ShelterPrograms #VermontPolitics #USPolitics #SocialJustice #HealthOutcomes #HomelessnessPrevention #PublicHealthCrisis #HealthPolicy
Share this post