Study: States with highest lung cancer rates spend least on prevention

Many states with the highest lung cancer rates are squandering tobacco settlement money intended for disease prevention on unrelated programs, according to a study of health and fiscal data released Thursday by a national anti-cancer group.

Even more alarming, anti-smoking advocates say, is that states with the gravest need for stop-smoking programs often spend the least on them.

In 1998, 46 states won $206 billion from major cigarette makers. Since then, policy-makers have struggled over how much of that money should be earmarked for anti-smoking programs.

Many states have missed an important opportunity, according to the report by the non-profits Cancer Care and The Chest Foundation.

Last year, the 10 states with the highest lung cancer rates received an average of more than $29 per person in settlement funds and the Centers for Disease Control recommended they spend about $7 per person on tobacco-control programs, the study said.

Instead, lawmakers in those states, which include several in the South, allocated an average of a little less than $2 on tobacco-control programs, according to the study.

States got an average of nearly $164 million, yet allocated just 6 percent for tobacco control, the study said. That ended up being less than half the CDC-recommended level of $7.47 per person.

The cold realities of budget deficits make the settlement money an attractive option for cash-strapped states. And earlier this week, a federal appeals court here reaffirmed states' right to spend settlement funds at their discretion.

But that doesn't make it sound policy, according Mike Moore, Mississippi's attorney general, who spearheaded the settlement.

"They think that the money just fell out of heaven, and, 'OK, I have a deficit,' or 'I have a political whim,' or 'I need to build a highway,'" Moore said Thursday in an interview at a national anti-smoking conference here. "I call it moral treason. I call it stupid. It's so shortsighted."

According to the American Cancer Society, 170,000 Americans will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year. Researchers believe more than 90 percent will die from the disease.

Smoking prevention programs such as ad campaigns and buying-age enforcement can save tens of thousands of lives annually, anti-cancer advocates say.

"We've developed a cure for lung cancer," said Gregory Connolly, director of the oft-lauded Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program. "All we need is the political will to apply it."

Several states confronted the issue on Election Day. Montana voters passed a measure directing that a larger share of its settlement money be spent on health and anti-smoking programs; Michigan voters rejected a similar proposal.

With 122 deaths per 100,000 men during the mid-90s, Kentucky had the highest rates of lung cancer - but the state spent less than $1 per person of federal anti-tobacco funds. The CDC recommended more than $6 per person.

At the other extreme, Mississippi spent nearly twice the CDC-recommended $6.88 per person on smoking cessation programs. Its cancer rate was 84 deaths per 100,000 men.

Lawmakers in some states have "securitized" future settlement money to plug holes in their budgets.

California's current budget, for example, includes $4.5 billion in expected settlement receipts - money that helped fill a $23.6 budget shortfall.

In 2001, California received $22.41 per person from the settlement but spent just $3.44 on anti-smoking programs - the CDC suggested a $5.12 per capita expenditure. Its cancer rate was 66 deaths per 100,000 men.

"The budget situation was such that we had to come up with a multifaceted solution," said Anita Gore, spokeswoman for California's finance department. "The tobacco settlement securitization allows us to keep from making further, deeper cuts in health programs and social services programs."

I did a search and didn't find this article posted. Seems to me smokers and BIG Tobacco are taking a beating by the greed of trial lawyers, the states and all the anti's!

If they are so concerned about people smoking why don't they take part of the settlement money and provide nicotine gum or patches to those who wish to quit, instead of just adding it to the general revenue fund.

You make my point...they aren't really concerned! Their mantra is the end justifies the means. In addition to the settlement proceeds...many states are implementing punitive tobacco taxes to swell state coffers under the guise of offsetting tobacco related health care costs and youth oriented anti-smoking education.

Mississippi spent nearly twice the CDC-recommended $6.88 per person on smoking cessation programs. Its cancer rate was 84 deaths per 100,000 men

California . …. spent just $3.44 on anti-smoking programs - the CDC suggested a $5.12 per capita expenditure. Its cancer rate was 66 deaths per 100,000 men.

I’m going to have to work on this a while longer, if I’m going to understand what they are trying to say with these numbers. Also, is that 100,000 men that died or is it total men in the population?? Aw well . ....

Don't quote me on this...but, I think what they are saying is that the state settlement amounts were calculated on a per person (resident) amount. Then the expenditures were based on groupings of 100,000 men with a (fill in the blank) number of lung cancer deaths. I take the 100,000 to be population totals not specifically smokers.

I think you’re right [but I won’t quote you :-) ], but if you look at the two states, doesn’t it look like the more you spend, the worse the results? And why did they leave the girls out? I really do think, that all this is so much BS that they even get confused themselves!

I really do think, that all this is so much BS that they even get confused themselves!

LOL...I have to agree with you on your observation. After reading the article again it would appear that the recommended per person expenditures were based on total state population and the statistics (or cases cited) were just window dressing to support the expenditures.

It seems ironic that the state with the highest per 100,000 incidence of cancer would spend the lowest per person amount!

As for where are the statistics for women? Who knows...maybe we should ask NOW! LMAO

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.