Meeting Recap Form by ixo45167

VIEWS: 44 PAGES: 12

									                  TOBACCO & HEALTHCARE:
                  BUILDING EFFECTIVE COALITIONS TO IMPACT POLICY CHANGE
                  HANDOUT A – SAMPLE MEETING RECAP FORM



                              Meeting Recap Form

Date:


Organization:


Contact Information:



Participants:




Potential Partner?




Concerns:




Follow Up?




            SONDERMANN/E-SQUARED PARTNERS, DENVER, CO
                TOBACCO & HEALTHCARE:
                BUILDING EFFECTIVE COALITIONS TO IMPACT POLICY CHANGE
                HANDOUT B – PURPOSE OF STEERING COMMITTEE




                 Steering Committee Purpose / Objectives


 Determine if there is the interest / will to go through with the initiative

 Determine the amount of the tax increase

 Determine how to divide the revenue

 Determine if this should be a constitutional amendment or statutory law

 Determine how to run and fund the campaign




          SONDERMANN/E-SQUARED PARTNERS, DENVER, CO
                TOBACCO & HEALTHCARE:
                BUILDING EFFECTIVE COALITIONS TO IMPACT POLICY CHANGE
                HANDOUT C – STEERING COMMITTEE GROUND RULES




                            Proposed Ground Rules


 Group will make decisions based on consensus: Everyone understand
  and live with the decisions (Fallback: Agree to disagree or
  organization/individual can choose to leave)

 One person talk at a time

 No Shaggy Dog Stories = be concise, do not dominate

 No personal or institutional attacks




          SONDERMANN/E-SQUARED PARTNERS, DENVER, CO
              TOBACCO & HEALTHCARE:
              BUILDING EFFECTIVE COALITIONS TO IMPACT POLICY CHANGE
              HANDOUT D – STEERING PRINCIPLES / CORE VALUES




Guiding Principles for Determining Tobacco Tax Revenue Allocations


1. Fund sound programs that benefit the health of Coloradans. Funded
   programs must:
       a. Be cost effective.
       b. Have evaluation and accountability mechanisms.
       c. Have a proven track record.

2. Build a politically viable package. The package must be:
       a. Supported by the public.
       b. Able to attract the necessary resources to support the campaign.
       c. Clear and concise, limited to 3 or 4 areas of funding.

3. Favor programs that leverage money from governmental or non-
   governmental agencies.

4. Do not duplicate or supplant existing funding.




        SONDERMANN/E-SQUARED PARTNERS, DENVER, CO
                         TOBACCO & HEALTHCARE:
                         BUILDING EFFECTIVE COALITIONS TO IMPACT POLICY CHANGE
                         HANDOUT E – WAYS TO ALLOCATE TOBACCO TAX REVENUE




                    Proposed Ways to Allocate the New Tobacco Tax Revenue

1. Fund tobacco prevention/cessation services at levels recommended by Centers for Disease
   Control
2. Fund program(s) to provide prescription drugs to needy seniors
3. Increase prescription drug coverage in ways designed to reduce emergency room visits
4. Expand eligibility for CHP+ and/or Medicaid
5. Increase the network of providers – by expanding existing facilities or creating new
   facilities – for prenatal and pediatric care, emphasizing underserved populations
6. Improve or stabilize Medicaid and/or CHP+ reimbursement rates for providers
7. Create fund for hospitals to provide health care for the indigent/uninsured
8. Reduce the number of uninsured/underserved in Colorado by expanding and strengthening
   the private health insurance market
9. Create a statewide, comprehensive cancer prevention, screening and treatment program
10. Provide funding for emergency trauma care and/or development of a statewide trauma
    system
11. Provide resources for local health facilities to respond to trauma and disasters, including
    terrorism
12. Expand Cover Colorado, which offers health insurance for those who cannot purchase it
    from the private sector because of medical conditions
13. Provide funds to counties and local governments for health care programs
14. Provide funding to local non-profit health clinics for uninsured patients
15. Fund tobacco-related researchExpand access to behavioral (i.e. mental) health care to the
    underserved through the creation of more efficient delivery mechanisms
16. Provide guidance, education and ongoing career support to add health professionals in
    understaffed fields




                  SONDERMANN/E-SQUARED PARTNERS, DENVER, CO
                    TOBACCO & HEALTHCARE:
                    BUILDING EFFECTIVE COALITIONS TO IMPACT POLICY CHANGE
                    HANDOUT F – SAMPLE POLICY PAPER



(Created policy paper for each of the revenue allocation areas under consideration and
presented to Steering Committee in order to assist in their decision-making process)


       INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE STATE TOBACCO EDUCATION
                   AND PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP


THE PROBLEM: Tobacco Takes a Devastating Toll on Colorado

 Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in Colorado, with more
    than 4,200 Coloradans dying every year from tobacco-related diseases. Tobacco also takes
    an economic toll in Colorado, producing more than $1 billion in annual health care costs –
    costs that impact businesses, consumers, health insurers, health care providers and state and
    local government. Of those total costs, about $250 million are Medicaid dollars. The total
    tax burden to every Colorado household due to state and federal government tobacco-
    related expenditures is $501 per year.

 In the 2000 legislative session, the legislature allocated 15 percent, up to $15 million
    annually, of the tobacco settlement funds to a tobacco education, prevention, and cessation
    program administered by the State tobacco Education and Prevention Partnership (STEPP) at
    the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. In the 2003 session, however,
    the legislature cut funding to just $3.8 million.


THE SOLUTION: Fund Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs

 Programs Must Follow Best Practices: STEPP programs are designed in accordance with
    the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) “Best Practices” guidelines for effective tobacco
    control programs. The programs address three primary areas: 1) Preventing the initiation of
    tobacco use by youth, 2) Helping current tobacco users to quit and 3) Reducing exposure to
    secondhand smoke. Programs have been established in local communities throughout the
    state. Additionally, statewide programs have been established, such as the Colorado Quitline.

 Comprehensive Programs are Highly Effective: In just the first two years of
    implementation (2000–2002), STEPP contributed to a 10% decline in tobacco consumption
    in Colorado. A study published in the December 5, 2001 issue of the Journal of the American
    Medical Association found that the four states with the nation’s longest running tobacco
    prevention programs had reduced adult smoking rates at more than three times the rate of
    other states. Numerous other studies have proven that comprehensive tobacco control
    programs are effective.




             SONDERMANN/E-SQUARED PARTNERS, DENVER, CO
POLITICAL VIABILITY:

 According to the Fairbank tobacco tax poll, 72% of the public supports (48% strongly, 24%
    somewhat) using tobacco tax revenue to increase funding for tobacco education and
    prevention programs in Colorado. It is expected that several state and national tobacco
    control organizations will contribute substantial resources to the campaign if tobacco control
    is a funding recipient.


REVENUE ALLOCATION:

 In order for tobacco control programs to be effective, they must be well-funded and
    maintained over time. The CDC recommends a minimum spending level for tobacco control
    of $24.5 million per year for Colorado with an optimum spending level of $63 million. The
    middle point of this range is $44 million. Providing $35 million annually (80% of mid-level
    CDC funding) from the tobacco tax would make Colorado’s tobacco control program more
    effective and protect against further cuts in the tobacco settlement funding.

 $35 million would make Colorado the leader among all states for tobacco control funding,
    allowing the state to make a dramatic impact on tobacco use rates. Funding at the CDC
    minimum of $24.5 million would make Colorado the fifth in the nation in tobacco control
    funding. Following CDC and current STEPP guidelines, the funding would likely be broken
    out as follows:
       1/3 to youth prevention programs
       1/3 to cessation activities for youth and adults
       1/3 to secondhand smoke education

 It is important to look at the level of funding needed for effective tobacco control programs in
    relation to the amount of money the tobacco industry spends marketing its products every
    year in Colorado, as illustrated by this graph:

                   Tobacco Industry Marketing vs Prevention Funding in
                             Colorado (Annual Expenditures)



            $200,000,000
            $150,000,000
                                                                          Tobacco Industry
            $100,000,000                                                  Marketing
                                                                          Prevention Funding
              $50,000,000
                           $0
                                1997           1999          2001


                         Source for Industry Marketing: Federal Trade Commission




             SONDERMANN/E-SQUARED PARTNERS, DENVER, CO
LEVERAGING FEDERAL FUNDS:

Funding tobacco control minimally leverages Federal dollars. Currently, Colorado tobacco
prevention programs leverage about $4 million in federal funding. About $2 million of this is
secure funding for the future (CDC funds).


EVALUATION:

According to the CDC, STEPP in Colorado has one of the strongest evaluation protocols in the
nation. Evaluation for the program includes:

       The Colorado Tobacco Attitudes and Behaviors Survey, which tracks data on adult and
        adolescent smoking, secondhand smoke exposure, and youth access to tobacco.
       Other systems to track tobacco use rates, such as the Youth Tobacco Survey and the
        Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.
       Extensive internal evaluation protocols to measure qualitative successes.




             SONDERMANN/E-SQUARED PARTNERS, DENVER, CO
                           TOBACCO & HEALTHCARE:
                           BUILDING EFFECTIVE COALITIONS TO IMPACT POLICY CHANGE
                           HANDOUT G – PROGRAM / PRINCIPLE MATRIX


                                                               Program / Principle Matrix

             *This does not include program descriptions. For descriptions of the need and solution please refer to the 1-page policy proposal.


             Comprehensive         Expansion of         Federally Qual.     CoverColorado        Rx Drugs for Needy       Tobacco Control &       Trauma/
             Cancer Control        CHP+/Medicaid        Health Centers                           Seniors, Disabled        Prevention              Disaster Prog.


Political    74% Support           78% Support          73% Support         79% Support          80% Support              72% Support             72% Support
Viability    (48% strongly;        (56% strongly;       (44% strongly;      (49% strongly;       (59% strongly; 21%       (48% strongly; 24%      (42% strongly;
             26% somewhat)         22%somewhat)         29% somewhat)       30% somewhat)        somewhat)                somewhat)               30%
                                                                                                                                                  somewhat)
Revenue      $50 Million           $40 - $60 M,         $10 - $20 M,        $5 - $10 M           $40 - $100 M,            $35 Million             $5 - $10 M
Allocation                         depending on         depending on                             depending on level of
                                   level of coverage    level of coverage                        coverage

Evaluation   Ongoing eval. thru    CHP+/Medicaid        Data collected by   Regulated by         To be run by existing    STEPP already tracks    Mock disaster
             cancer surveillance   already have data    HHS; local          Div.of Insurance;    agency with tracking     data on tobacco-        exercises and
             and need and cost     collection and       quality assurance   submits annual       and evaluation           related matters and     subsequent
             analysis              reporting            program with        fiscal audits to     systems in place         has internal            evaluation to
                                   processes in         data reporting      Insurance                                     evaluation protocols    assess multi-
                                   place                systems exists      Commissioner                                                          agency
                                                                                                                                                  response
Existing     Partially             Yes                  Yes                 Yes                  No in CO; yes in 28      Yes                     No
Program?                                                                                         other states
Leverage     Yes                   Yes                  Yes                 No                   Potentially              Yes                     Unknown
Federal $?

Campaign     Board of CO.          Important to         FQHCs would         Could bring          AARP would provide       Brings national         Unknown
Resources    Cancer Center         Hospital             provide fiscal      health insurers to   in-kind support          tobacco control
             could help            Association          support             the table                                     organizations
Fairbank,
Maslin,                                                                   TOBACCO & HEALTHCARE:
                                                           BUILDING EFFECTIVE COALITIONS TO IMPACT
Maullin &                                                                          POLICY CHANGE
Associates                                                  HANDOUT H – FMM&A POLLING MEMO ON
                                                                                     AUG. ’04 POLL




    TO:              Interested Parties

    FROM:            Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates

    RE:              Results of Tracking Survey on Amendment 35: the Healthier Colorado
    Initiative

    DATE:            September 20, 2004


    Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates (FMM&A) recently completed a tracking survey of
    Colorado voters to evaluate their support for Amendment 35: the Healthier Colorado
    Initiative.1 The survey measured shifts in public opinion that have taken place since the
    baseline survey was conducted in June 2003.

    The recent survey reveals that, after voters heard the full ballot language, a 59 percent
    majority said they would vote Yes in favor of the initiative. This overall level of support
    has decreased slightly over time, by five percentage points. The strong support for the
    measure (or those who say they will “definitely” vote Yes) continues to be at 36-37 percent
    and one-third (33%) are still opposed to the measure. The proportion of voters who are
    undecided on the measure has increased to 8 percent. Figure 1 below illustrates these
    findings.
                                            FIGURE 1:
                      The Vote on 35: The Healthier Colorado Initiative
                                        May 2003                                       August 2004
                 Definitely yes                            37% Total                                    36%   Total
                 Probably yes                        25%             Yes                         22%           Yes
                                                                     64%                                      59%
          Undecided, lean yes          2%                                       1%



           Undecided, lean no          1%                                       1%
                                                           Total                                     Total
                  Probably no               10%                                      8%               No
                                                            No
                 Definitely no                      22%    33%                                   24% 33%



                   NMI/DK/NA           3%                                            8%
                                  0%    10%   20%    30%   40%     50%     0%        10%   20%    30%   40%   50%
While the survey results reveal that support has weakened somewhat, they also
clearly show that once voters learn more about the measure, the level of support
increases significantly. With a relatively soft “definite” yes vote, the campaign cannot
continue to lose support. Therefore, it is critical that the campaign communicate the
importance of the initiative to Colorado voters, highlighting what the measure does and its
benefits to Colorado residents. This effort will prove to be extremely effective throughout
the rest of the campaign.

At this point, the base of support for the tobacco tax initiative comes from Democrats
(particularly those under 50), highly educated voters, voters under age 50, women
(particularly those under 50), and those who reside in the Pueblo/Colorado Springs media
market. However, the level of support - across the electorate - can be increased substantially
once voters hear arguments in favor of the initiative. Indeed, support increases among
men, women, voters of all races, political parties, and geographic areas.

When voters understand that tobacco tax funds will be provided for cancer prevention and
treatment programs, and for tobacco education and cessation programs that reduce the risk
of heart and lung disease, their support for the initiative increases. Those messages that
were particularly persuasive include:

   Some of the top causes of death in Colorado are cancer, heart disease, lung disease and
    stroke. This measure will help to prevent, detect, and treat these deadly diseases and
    save lives in Colorado.

   More than one-third of Colorado high-schoolers use tobacco. This measure will increase
    the tax on tobacco and fund tobacco education and prevention programs—two proven
    ways to stop teenagers from beginning to smoke. And for every three kids who are
    prevented from smoking, there is one less smoking death in the future.

   The state tax on cigarettes in Colorado is 20 cents, less than one third of the national
    average. Colorado ranks 49th out of 50 states in the tax on cigarettes. The only state in
    the U.S. that has cheaper taxes on cigarettes is Kentucky, a tobacco producing state. This
    measure will bring Colorado’s tobacco tax in line with the national average.

   This initiative includes strict accountability measures including guaranteed financial and
    performance audits, regular spending reports listed on the Internet and in local libraries
    across the state, and a blue ribbon panel of experts to ensure that the money is spent
    efficiently, effectively and as promised.

Once voters heard these various statements in favor of the measure, the level of
support increased 5 points from 59 percent to 64 percent. Even more striking, the
“definite yes” increased 8 points from 33 percent to 41 percent. Clearly, voters are
more likely to vote in favor of the initiative once they learn more about it.
In sum, the results suggest that this is a winnable initiative, but the campaign must continue
to put forth a comprehensive and well funded effort that communicates the benefits of the
Healthier Colorado Initiative to the voters.



1
  Methodology: From August 15-18, 2004, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates (FMM&A),
conducted 600 telephone interviews among likely voters in the State of Colorado. The margin of sampling
error for the full sample is +/-4.0%; margins of sampling error among the subgroups within the sample will
be higher. This survey tracks the results from a previous poll of 600 Colorado voters conducted May 29-
June 5, 2003.

								
To top