Michigan currently ranks 48th in the U.S. for its tobacco use prevention efforts. | stock photo
Michigan currently ranks 48th in the U.S. for its tobacco use prevention efforts. | stock photo
Tobacco settlement money coming into Michigan isn't going toward improving public health, but rather it's funding the Michigan Strategic Fund and Michigan Economic Development Corporation, and critics say it's time for that to stop.
Michael La Faive, the senior director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative, and Todd Nesbit, an assistant professor of free enterprise and entrepreneurial economics at Ball State University, say that none of the $219 million Michigan received in 2019 as part of ongoing settlement payouts intended to offset Medicaid costs have gone toward tobacco prevention or cessation programs, according to a blog published by The Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
In addition to the settlement money, Michigan generated $878 million in revenue from cigarette and tobacco taxes for fiscal 2019. Yet over more than $1 billion total coming in related to tobacco, the state only spent $1.6 million on any form of tobacco prevention, according to the Mackinac Center.
In contrast, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that Michigan spend $111 million annually on tobacco use prevention, according to the Mackinac Center. Due to the small amount the state spends on prevention, Michigan currently ranks 48th in the U.S. for its prevention efforts.
Other states, such as Florida, have claimed to make good strides in cutting down on youth smoking rates with their prevention programs. The economic development programs where Michigan is spending its tobacco-related funds to the tune of $75 million a year have no similar proof of efficacy in spurring economic development.
"Maybe spending that $75 million on corporations instead of kids could somehow be justified if the corporate subsidy programs funded by it were actually effective," the authors state, according to the Mackinac Center.
For these reasons, the LaFaive and Nesbit argue that the state should cease its efforts, which they characterize as "corporate welfare," and refocus that spending in areas that would benefit the citizens of Michigan.
Alerts Sign-up