 |
Stories: CNN, PBS, WebMD |
|
Stories: CNN, PBS, WebMD |
This report, written in December 1999, is an examination of political alliances worked to create Oregon's Tobacco Prevention and Education Program. It's a clear lesson in how good intentions and even good science is not enough to succeed in shaping public health policy. You need allies... with money and influence.
Beneficence. Anything that reduces tobacco use also reduces tobacco-related
illness and death. Studies have shown that the price elasticity for tobacco
is approximately -0.4. (CDC, 1999) The price elasticity model works to
reduce tobacco use whether the price increase is promulgated by the tobacco
industry or whether it is due to a tax increase. With price increases,
the intervention is focused more on the high risk individuals; those who
use more tobacco pay more of the new tax. But, price increases are population-based,
encouraging tobacco users to use less and discouraging non-users from starting.
Comprehensive statewide tobacco prevention programs have been shown
to be effective in California and Massachusetts. Both these programs were
funded by citizen initiatives that increased state tobacco taxes, California
in 1988 and Massachusetts in 1992. In the period 1992-1996, per capita
consumption of cigarettes declined 15.8% in California, 19.7% in Massachusetts,
and only 6.1 % in the rest of the United States. (CDC, 1999)
Non-maleficence. Any tax causes harm to the payers by taking money that might be used for other purchases. Lower income individuals are more likely to smoke (Table 2). Given a certain amount of taxes to be collected, the harm from a tobacco tax is greater than the harm from most other taxes because those least able to afford the tax actually pay higher taxes.
Justice. Tobacco taxes are unjust because they place the entire tax burden on tobacco users, who tend to have poorer health, lower incomes, and less education than the general population (Tables 1 and 2). On the other hand, tobacco taxes may be viewed as a user fee, helping to offset the additional health care costs due to tobacco. Most people carry group health care coverage, with the same premiums for smokers and non-smokers. Insured smokers do not have to individually pay the increased health care costs related to their smoking. In Oregon, 293 million packs of cigarettes were sold in 1996 while the annual direct health care costs were estimated at $800 million. (Oregon Health Division, 1999) The health care costs per pack of cigarettes is over $2/pack. Even after passage of Measure 44, the tax on cigarettes does not cover the tobacco-related health care costs (Oregon tax: 68 cents/pack; federal tax: 24 cents/pack).
In conclusion, there are ethical issues regarding taxes and their burden on the lower income groups, but, overall, tobacco taxes and tobacco prevention programs can be considered a public health good. Reducing tobacco use is arguably the greatest tool for health promotion, and taxes and prevention programs are an effective and ethical means towards that end.
Anti-tobacco groups felt that it was nearly impossible to persuade the Legislature to substantially increase tobacco taxes or fund a statewide tobacco prevention program. (North, Patterson, 1999) The practical alternative was to collect signatures and get a citizens initiative on the ballot as was done in California, Massachusetts, and Arizona. Groups including the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and American Heart Association (the Voluntaries) had tried to get tobacco tax initiatives on the ballot a couple times in the early 1990’s. These attempts had failed to get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. (Weller, 1999)
In 1995 a new initiative to raise tobacco taxes was proposed, not by the traditional anti-tobacco organizations, but by a health care company. PeaceHealth, a hospital system in Eugene, approached OAHHS with a proposal for a ballot initiative to increase tobacco taxes and dedicate the money to the OHP and tobacco prevention. OAHHS, the Oregon Medical Association, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oregon, formed a committee (later called the Committee to Support the Oregon Health Plan) to design the initiative and conduct the campaign. The committee hired a political consulting firm, PacWest, to conduct a public opinion poll. (Patterson, 1999)
The poll indicated that the public supported a tobacco tax increase that would help fund the Oregon Health Plan. However, spending the new revenue on "educating kids about tobacco" was viewed even more favorably (Figure 2). When asked which organizations or individuals would be most influential to their voting decisions, the American Cancer Society and other Voluntaries were at the top of the list (with greater than 60% favorable ratings), far higher ratings than the Oregon Hospital Association (40%) or the Oregon Medical Association (47%) (Figure 3).
Initially, the initiative sponsors wanted all of the tax revenue to go to the OHP, but the poll results showed the political advantages of dedicating a portion of the revenues to anti-tobacco efforts. As Ed Patterson, OAHHS lobbyist, said, "There was a strong sense that our goal was to raise funds for the Oregon Health Plan, our goal was not to run an anti-tobacco campaign. There was a big debate about zero percent for anti-tobacco, and finally, because of some heavy lobbying that went on, we agreed to the 10 percent [for tobacco prevention.]" The inclusion of tobacco prevention funding helped the campaign in two important ways. First, it allowed the campaign to say that the initiative would fund tobacco prevention, especially tobacco prevention for kids. Second, it was enough to get the Voluntaries on board as the public spokespersons for the initiative. As campaign consultant Paul Phillips summarized, "the true believers were essential to the campaign. I couldn’t win without them and they couldn’t win without me."
The Voluntaries might have had some uneasiness working on Measure 44 since one of the main players at PacWest was Phillips, a former Republican legislator who had sponsored "pre-emption" legislation that would have prevented local governments from passing tobacco-related ordinances more restrictive than state law. (North, 1999) If there is pre-emption, the tobacco industry does not have to fight political battles at the city and county levels. Indeed, Phillips had considered including pre-emption language in Measure 44, but the wording did not poll well. (Phillips, 1999)
Measure 44 would support public health objectives. It had the support of the private medical groups and the Voluntaries, albeit each with their own motivations. How would it be sold to the voters of Oregon?
Additionally, the tobacco industry paid more than the usual rate to hire signature gatherers for Measure 39, an initiative that would require insurers to reimburse "alternative" health care providers. That competition increased the going rate for signature gatherers thereby sapping funds from the Measure 44 coalition. It also meant that the medical industry would have to divert some funds to the campaign against Measure 39. Ensuring that Measure 39 was on the ballot was "pay-back" for the medical groups’ involvement in tobacco issues. (Nelson, 1999)
Fairness was a key theme of the opposition advertising campaign, along with arguments that the new tax "isn’t what it seems" (Table 4). As Mark Nelson puts it, "This is a tax on a minority of Oregonians to fund somebody else’s healthcare, and it didn’t necessarily mean any more people would be covered, either because general fund money would go out the back door or reimbursement increases, necessitated by the way the Oregon Health Plan was set up, would just chew them up." The opposition campaign ads also used general anti-government and anti-tax arguments. For example. one radio spot said that much of the tax money would go to "Oregon’s own Bermuda Triangle: the black hole in Salem" In a post-election survey, people who voted against Measure 44 were asked what their primary reason was for opposing it. The two most common answers were "tobacco users should not be forced to pay a disproportionate share of health costs" (47%) and "it will lead to wasteful spending by government" (36%). (Sahr, 1997)
Supporters of Measure 44 aired only one television advertisement. The ad said the new tax would give more children health care coverage and fund a new program to prevent children from smoking. The spot argued that the only opposition to the tax came from the tobacco industry. A parallel series of anti-smoking TV spots was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. These ads did not mention Measure 44 and were not part of the official campaign, but they supported the campaign’s anti-tobacco industry message. A few weeks prior to the election, supporters won a ruling from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requiring broadcast ads from the opposition to identify the sponsor as the Tobacco Institute rather than the "Fairness Matters to Oregonians Committee." Phillips said the FCC ruling was significant in the campaign. "It validated all the earned media we were doing, saying, ‘this is all the tobacco industry’…not some kind of business coalition or anything else." (Phillips, 1999)
Although excluded from the campaign’s decision-making committee in the beginning, the American Cancer Society (ACS) became the most visible proponent of the new tax. ACS-Oregon Vice President Rick North, other staff, and volunteers made a number of media and public appearances to make the following points:
· the tax was fair because it was actually less than the direct medical costs incurred by smokers,Since the Voluntaries were the public face of the campaign they defused attempts by the tobacco industry to label Measure 44 as a money grab by health insurers.
· it would fund efforts to prevent kids from smoking, and
· it was a blow against a "deceitful" tobacco industry.
The initiative began as a way to help fund the Oregon Health Plan, the campaign focused more on tobacco issues. The basic message was captured in a newspaper ad that displayed two columns. One side, labeled "Yes", listed 36 supporting organizations and individuals. The other side, labeled "No", listed one opponent on a black background: the tobacco industry. According to the post election survey, the primary reasons people voted for Measure 44 was "to discourage tobacco consumption" (66%) and "to expand the Health Plan" (27%). (Sahr, 1997)
The Measure 44 campaign began with an almost 2-to-1 lead in the polls. (Nelson, 1999) Although the opposition reduced that margin, the measure passed with 56 percent of the vote. Oregon’s cigarette tax increased from 38 cents to 68 cents a pack on February 1, 1997. The tax on other tobacco products rose from 35 percent to 65 percent of the wholesale price. The Oregon Health Plan got an infusion of cash and the Oregon Health Division received funding to create the Tobacco Prevention and Education Program (TPEP).
It is worth noting that the passage of Measure 44 is likely to have a greater long-term effect on Oregon public health efforts than a legislative vote for anti-tobacco funding would have had. By specifically dedicating a share of tobacco taxes to the TPEP, Oregon voters institutionalized tobacco control. The Legislature can repeal the tax or eliminate funding for the TPEP, but that action would require legislators to overturn a vote of the people. Tobacco prevention infrastructure is being created throughout the state. Both supporters and opponents point to the new county coalitions working to promote local anti-tobacco ordinances and policies. Tobacco lobbyist Mark Nelson complains that tobacco control is now a "cottage industry" in every county of Oregon.
However, these practical lessons in politics made an impression. When North arranged for a $75,000 contribution from the national ACS, he told one of the campaign’s leaders that the money was also his ticket into the "inner circle." "I said, ‘We are coming with 75 thousand for a media campaign. You know this thing, you guys are supplying the money and we’re not, doesn’t hold true anymore. We deserve a spot on this Executive Committee, and I think I ought to have it.’ And he said, ‘OK.’ You know, money does talk." Even late in the campaign, it was important for North to be placed on the Executive Committee as it gave him more power to advocate for tobacco prevention in the Legislature. (North, 1999)
The Oregon ACS learned from the success of Measure 44 and has since
hired its first full-time Advocacy Manager, in part to maintain political
alliances. (North, 1999) In terms of public health accomplishments, the
top of North’s list is not a program, but the political campaign. "The
one single thing I’m most proud of is Measure 44. The agency was unified
like I’ve never seen it before. The atmosphere in that office, in that
organization, was honestly it was electric." The 1996 campaign for Measure
44 was faithful to public health ideals and demonstrated how a dose of
practical politics can be the key to effective public health actions.
American Cancer Society, Oregon Division. The 1996 Oregon Tobacco Tax Initiative: A History of the Campaign. Portland, OR. 1997.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco Tax Initiative - Oregon, 1996. MMWR. March 21, 1997. 46(11):246-8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Decline in Cigarette Consumption Following Implementation of a Comprehensive Tobacco Prevention and Education Program - Oregon, 1996–1998. MMWR. February 26, 1999. 48 (7):140-3
Glantz SA, Goldman LK. Tobacco industry political expenditures and tobacco policy making in Oregon: 1985-1987. Institute of Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco. San Francisco, CA. May 1998.
Mcginnis, J; Foege, W. Actual causes of death in the United States. JAMA. 270. November 10, 1993. 2207-2212
Nelson M. Nov. 3, 1999. Personal communication.
Oregon Health Division. Oregon Tobacco Facts. Portland, OR. April 1999.
Oregon Health Division. Tobacco Prevention & Education Program Report – 1999. Portland, OR.
Oregon Secretary of State. Official Results, State Measure No. 44, 11/5/96 General Election. Retrieved October 29, 1999 from http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov596/results/m44.htm
Oregon Secretary of State, Elections Division. Campaign Finance Activity, Committee Name: FAIRNESS MATTERS TO OREGONIANS COMMITTEE. Retrieved November 27, 1999 from http://www.sos.state.or.us:8080/elec_srch/elfi$web_ce_sumry.startup?P_FILER_ID=2474&Z_CHK=5586
Public Affairs Counsel. Proposed Campaign Plan: Defeat of Ballot Measure to Increase Oregon’s Tobacco Excise Tax (Revised). Retrieved October 20, 1999 from http://www.pmdocs.com/gettallimg.asp?DOCID=2062523122/3156
Patterson E. Nov. 3, 1999. Personal communication.
Phillips P., Nov. 4, 1999. Personal communication.
Pierce-Lavin C, Geller AC, Hyde J, Evjy J. eds. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Boston University School of Medicine Working Group: Creating Statewide Tobacco control Programs after Passage of a Tobacco Tax. Cancer. 1998. 83(12) Supplement. 2659-2774.
Sahr R, Sellers SW, Steel BS, Lovrich NP. Pacific Northwest Survey of Government Issues, 1996 – 1997, Oregon State Results. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.
Santa J. Oct. 7, 1999. Personal communication.
Scott T. Oregon Post-Mortem. Retrieved October 20, 1999 from http://www.pmdocs.com/gettallimg.asp?DOCID=2062516365/6367
Tobacco-Free Coalition of Oregon. Oregon Statewide Tobacco Prevention Plan. Portland, OR. November 1995.
Traynor MP, Glantz SA. California’s tobacco tax initiative: the development and passage of proposition 99. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. 1996;21(3):543-579
Weller J. Nov. 4, 1999. Personal communication.