Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Dr. John Hughes, a professor at the University of Vermont/Fletcher Allen Healthcare, a former chair of the Vermont Tobacco Evaluation and Review Board, and medical director of the Coalition for a Tobacco Free Vermont.
The Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Vermont, comprised of such respected public health organizations as the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and American Lung Association, has proposed increasing the cigarette tax by $1. This may be the only tax that the large majority of Vermonters (76 percent) actually want. A $1 increase in the cigarette tax will bring Vermont taxes up from near the bottom of Northeastern states to closer to the tax rates of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Quebec. A $1 increase would raise $10.2 million in revenue for the state, decrease the onset of smoking in kids, prompt Vermont adults to stop smoking, decrease tobacco-related deaths and substantially decrease future Medicaid costs to be borne by Vermont taxpayers.
Despite this, Gov. Peter Shumlin opposes this tax increase. Why? First, he doubts the $10.2 million figure; however, this estimate is based on several National Institute for Health studies. Even if this estimate is off by 25 percent, it would still be $7.5 million — a sum that could prevent many service cuts to Vermonters. Second, the governor does not wish for border store owners to lose sales to smokers from New York and Massachusetts where taxes are higher. The loss of cigarette tax from border stores would likely be less than $1 million — which pales in comparison to the $10.2 million increase in revenue expected with a tax increase. Thirdly, some believe cigarette taxes are especially burdensome to low-income smokers; however, a recent survey found low-income smokers support increased cigarette taxes as much as high income smokers. Consistent with this, the Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council is supporting the tax increase.
The governor has also proposed a “small cut”’; i.e., a 48 percent cut to Vermont’s Tobacco Control Program. This is ironic in that the program is the gold standard for how taxpayer money should be spent: It is based on scientific evidence, has an active citizen oversight board, is evaluated annually by an independent evaluator, and has been willing to change approach when things are not working. What else can a taxpayer ask? The program has had great success with Vermont kids (smoking prevalence is down from 31 percent to 16 percent) and some success with adults (down from 22 percent to 17 percent).
Spending money to help smokers stop helps Vermont’s finances. Every smoker who quits due to the Tobacco Control Program saves the state about $5,000 in future medical costs. Cutting the Tobacco Control Program now will decrease the number of smokers who quit in the next year, and consequently increase Medicaid/Medicare costs Vermont taxpayers will bear in later years. So cutting the Tobacco Control Program now really does not save money, it only shifts costs to later years. Readers may have heard that Vermont ranks as one of the healthiest states and may think smoking is not a problem here. However, with recent cuts to the Tobacco Control Program, smoking is one of the few health indicators in which Vermont’s ranking has worsened in the last few years.
In summary, a $1 increase in the tobacco tax will help the state with its current and future finances, and will make Vermont a healthier state. Cutting the Tobacco Control Program in half will increase smoking in Vermont, result in more tobacco-related deaths of Vermonters, and will not really save money, only shift costs to be borne by future Vermonters.
