State Funding for Tobacco Prevention
State comprehensive tobacco control programs are examined.1 These programs have been shown to be effective in preventing and reducing tobacco use, particularly among youth.2 The November 1998 multi-state settlement of the lawsuits against tobacco companies for over $200 billion over 25 years, as well as states’ individual settlements with tobacco companies, greatly increased the funds available to states for tobacco control. The CDC has studied states with successful comprehensive tobacco control programs to distill their essential elements and has made recommendations for how much funding is required in each state to implement such a program.3
The Secretary of Health and Human Services will implement a national public–private partnership for a prevention and health promotion outreach and education campaign to raise public awareness of health improvement across the life span, and the law explicitly calls for the campaign to address smoking cessation as well as proper nutrition, regular exercise, and obesity reduction. In addition, suggested activities for the innovative new "Community Transformation Grant Program" funds available to state and local organizations include development of programs to increase smoking cessation as well as access to nutrition and physical activity.
Does the state’s funding for tobacco prevention meet the CDC’s minimum recommended funding for that state?
States receive a "meets policy" when they fund tobacco prevention annually at levels falling within or above the CDC's recommended range. States receive a "limited policy" when they have funding levels that are at or greater than 50 percent of the CDC's recommended range. States receive a "weak policy" with funding levels less than 50 percent of the CDC's minimum recommendation. States receive a "no policy" if they have not committed any annual funds to tobacco prevention or have not yet decided how to allocate their settlement funding.
The CDC recently updated its recommendation for the amount each state should spend on tobacco prevention programs, taking into account new science, population increases, inflation and other changes since it last issued its recommendations in 1999. The 2010 Health Report Card assesses the states based on these new recommendations, which in most cases are higher than the earlier recommendations used for all previous Report Card editions.
| State | Strength of Policy | Change from 2007 |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Weak Policy | Same |
| Alaska | Limited Policy | Same |
| Arizona | Weak Policy | Worse |
| Arkansas | Limited Policy | Same |
| California | Weak Policy | Same |
| Colorado | Weak Policy | Worse |
| Connecticut | Weak Policy | Same |
| Delaware | Limited Policy | Worse |
| District of Columbia | Weak Policy | Better |
| Florida | Weak Policy | Same |
| Georgia | Weak Policy | Same |
| Hawaii | Limited Policy | Same |
| Idaho | Weak Policy | Same |
| Illinois | Weak Policy | Same |
| Indiana | Weak Policy | Same |
| Iowa | Weak Policy | Same |
| Kansas | Weak Policy | Same |
| Kentucky | Weak Policy | Same |
| Louisiana | Weak Policy | Same |
| Maine | Limited Policy | Worse |
| Maryland | Weak Policy | Same |
| Massachusetts | Weak Policy | Same |
| Michigan | Weak Policy | Better |
| Minnesota | Weak Policy | Worse |
| Mississippi | Weak Policy | Worse |
| Missouri | Weak Policy | Better |
| Montana | Limited Policy | Same |
| Nebraska | Weak Policy | Same |
| Nevada | Weak Policy | Same |
| New Hampshire | Weak Policy | Better |
| New Jersey | Weak Policy | Same |
| New Mexico | Weak Policy | Same |
| New York | Weak Policy | Same |
| North Carolina | Weak Policy | Same |
| North Dakota | Meets Policy | Better |
| Ohio | Weak Policy | Worse |
| Oklahoma | Weak Policy | Same |
| Oregon | Weak Policy | Same |
| Pennsylvania | Weak Policy | Worse |
| Rhode Island | Weak Policy | Same |
| South Carolina | Weak Policy | Better |
| South Dakota | Limited Policy | Better |
| Tennessee | Weak Policy | Better |
| Texas | Weak Policy | Same |
| Utah | Weak Policy | Same |
| Vermont | Limited Policy | Same |
| Virginia | Weak Policy | Same |
| Washington | Weak Policy | Worse |
| West Virginia | Weak Policy | Same |
| Wisconsin | Weak Policy | Same |
| Wyoming | Limited Policy | Same |
Data Source: Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, "History of State Spending for Tobacco Prevention," FY2006-2010, available at http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0209.pdf, accessed September 10, 2010.
Footnotes
1 According to the CDC, the goal of such programs is to reduce disease, disability, and death related to tobacco use by: (1) preventing young people from starting to use tobacco; (2) promoting quitting among young people and adults; (3) eliminating nonsmokers’ exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (also known as “second-hand smoke”); and (4) identifying and eliminating the disparities related to tobacco use and its effects among different population groups. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs (Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 2007), 7, available at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/stateandcommunity/be....
2 Meg Riordan, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, “Comprehensive Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Programs Effectively Reduce Tobacco Use,” July 2009, available at http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0045.pdf, accessed September 23, 2010.
3 Each recommendation is based on specific characteristics of the state (such as population level) and is in the form of a range of funding, with a lower and upper estimate for the total annual cost of a comprehensive tobacco control program. See Best Practices, supra note 1, 56.
