California’s Proposition 29: Analyzing the Impact on Public Health Funding
Every year, taxpayers in California spend $9 billion on healthcare while most of this money is lost in productivity. In each pack of cigarettes, there is a $15 cost charged. California has the lowest level of tax on cigarettes and tobacco with only 87 cents per pack.
In 2012, a proposition was put on the ballot in California that would have had a significant impact on public health funding. Proposition 29 aimed at increasing taxes on tobacco products to get more money that could fund public health initiatives and programs. The proposition’s intention was to reduce tobacco consumption, which would reduce the health problems associated with it, and enhance health in California.
This article seeks to understand how California’s Proposition 29’s impact on public health funding.
A win for State and Local Governments: Reduced Healthcare Costs
Currently, State and local governments are struggling with healthcare costs, especially in dealing with issues related to tobacco use and associated diseases. What Proposition 29 brought was increased taxes on tobacco, generating billions of dollars to fund public health initiatives and programs to reduce tobacco consumption.
The high taxes were meant to increase the cost of cigarettes and discourage people from smoking or using tobacco products. As a result, there would be reduced tobacco-related deaths and diseases.
The following organizations supported Prop 29:
- American Heart Association
- American Cancer Association
- Californians for a Cure
- American Lung Association of California
In California, state and local governments spend money providing health insurance to state and local government employees, and healthcare for uninsured persons and low-income earners. This places a huge burden on the government for sure. With Proposition 29’s recommendations, the governments will not shoulder this burden since public funding costs would be taken care of by the monies raised from the initiative and the taxes. Low-income earners and people without insurance would hugely benefit.
The initiative is expected to reduce tobacco product consumption by a large margin. Studies demonstrate that the use of tobacco products is associated with many health effects. Therefore, Proposition 29 sought to reduce the state and local government’s total spending on tobacco-related illnesses.
Moreover, Proposition 29 would have fiscal effects that would save more costs. For instance, fewer costs would be incurred by state and local governments in providing social services and healthcare.
The High Costs Would Reduce Smokers and Enhance Better Health
California’s Proposition 29 intended to raise $737 billion annually in new tax revenues. According to Ray Durazo, had the proposition been passed, it would have saved 104, 000 lives and saved up to 228, 000 kids from dropping out of school. That means there will be a significant drop in the number of children that will start smoking when new taxes take effect.
Besides, Prop 29 intended to triple the funding by the state for smoking cessation programs, leading to fewer teen smokers while increasing funds for cessation and tobacco control could help smokers quit because of increased costs. This would have resulted in less profits for big tobacco and fewer smokers and a healthy society.
One of the key aspects of the fund was to fund research to find cures for cancer and offer better treatment to patients of tobacco-related infections and diseases. These funds are mostly used in unaccountable ways. However, these funds would have been managed by a committee of 9 members to enhance accountability. The funds would not be used for the general fund but only for purposes of research and enhancing medical equipment and facilities to treat cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and other diseases resulting from smoking and the use of tobacco products.