Kansas Health Policy Authority holds meeting in Emporia
By Brandy Nance (Contact)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
A lively group of people turned out for a meeting hosted by the Kansas Health Policy Authority Tuesday evening at the Emporia Public Library.
The Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA) was created through legislation in 2005. KHPA is governed by a nine-member citizen board and eight ex-officio members. It coordinates statewide health policy agenda and manages publicly funded health programs including Medicaid, State Children’s Insurance Program, and Medikan and the State Employee Health Benefits Plan. Among other things the KHPA does is incorporates data to develop health policy.
The group held a town hall meeting Tuesday evening in Emporia as part of its community dialog tour. The KHPA provided meeting participants with handouts that outlined the 2009 priorities. The number one priority for KHPA is a statewide indoor smoking ban. According to the pamphlet, 83 percent of Kansans believe smoking is a health hazard and at least 36 states have restrictions on smoking in public places. The second priority for the group is a tobacco user fee and the third is health reform funding.
Marcia Nielsen, executive director of the Kansas Health Policy Authority said the tobacco user fee would bring tobacco use down while providing funding. The current tax on cigarettes in Kansas is $.79. According to the handout, tobacco use costs Kansans $.86 per pack sold to pay Medicaid expenses. KPHA is recommending an increase of $.75 per pack. This would generate about $68.7 million in revenues in 2010.
“People who smoke cost the system more. Period,” Nielsen said. “People who smoke are sicker than those who don’t.”
Nielsen also addressed the third priority, health care reform. She said Kansas is one of only 10 states in the country where the number of uninsured citizens went up last year.
“One in 10,” she said. “We have a long way to go.”
For more on Tuesday evening’s meeting including audience-generated discussion, see Wednesday’s Emporia Gazette.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think they need to reorder their priorities.
Posted by Paccifier (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, lets tax the tobacco use, but at the same time make it a priority to stop tobacco use- What is "Plan B" for their financing when the number of tobacco purchasers is lower than the funding they need? Afterall- curbing smoking is their goal isn't it? How can they have both, and who will they go after next?
Posted by barefootin (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jim Barnett has tried to pass a law against smoking in cars with kids and he belongs to this group thats passing the state wide smoking ban. I wont be affected by a smoking ban, but if they really want to decrease smoking, the best way is through public education, not by passing bans. I say this because I see less and less teenagers pick up the smoking habit which tells me that the public education in the schools and elsewhere are working. Live and let live, if you cant tolerate someones smoke or you believe second hand smoke will cause your premature death, stay away from the smoke.
Posted by clancy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A statewide clean indoor air law would be good, but such a policy can be adopted faster at the local level, including Emporia. Such a policy improves health.
A cigarette tax increase is also an effective health strategy. Such a tax increase reduces the number of cigarette packs sold, but the additional 75 cents per pack would provide Kansas even more tax revenue than it does at the lower tax rate.
The expansion of available funding could then help provide health care and prevention care for those Kansans with low incomes and oftentimes with expensive chronic illnesses that cost the state so much to provide through emergecny room treatment.
Support an improvement of public health in Kansas. Let your local and state policy makers know that you support clean indoor air laws and increased tobacco excise taxes.
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But Clancy, I DON'T support clean indoor air laws, because they restrict, IMHO, the rights of business owners(ESPECIALLY the one proposed in Emporia!). But I will let my local and state policy makers know that. :)
Posted by create (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Continue educating the public with an increased effort and NEW more creative methods instead of the tired old Say No campaigns. But no ban for private businesses like the CAE wants to shove down Emporia's throat. I wonder, would the KHPA have shown up if Monday's hearing had gone in a different direction?
Posted by wookdog13 (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Small town in Kansas, small minded people. It seems to me there are more important issues at hand than smoking. Sure, go ahead and force small businesses to close because Emporia is such a booming town any way. Most of you remind me of the lazy people that would rather complain because of x rated items on tv than to change the channel. In other words, if you do not like it, stay away. I have yet to see anyone forced into a place that allows smoking. You do have a choice. Why do most of the people think they have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do? Again, I think people want to estabilish a strong socialistic government than to allow adults to make their own choice. I fell sorry for those who think they must tell others how to live. I am an adult with a mind and can decide for myself what is right for me. Rather it be right or wrong, the choice is mine.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just what we need, more unfair taxes that single out a group of society in the guise of trying to help. It makes me think that capitalism is dead when the government can essentially force an industry like tobacco to pay to put themselves out of business by making them fund a lot of no smoking campaigns. Then they tax the people who choose to smoke under the guise of what is best for them.
Not to mention that I smoke. I have been sick exactly 3 times in the last 7 years. Two ear infections and a sinus infection. I would hardly say that I am sick more than non smokers.
Just shows that this is all about money, greed, and elitism.
Posted by wookdog13 (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hear you Outsider!! Maybe the government will bail out the tobacco growers also. More people with out jobs and a closing of an industry. Why not, we as middle class Americans are already taxed to death without relief or bailout.
Posted by smoker (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is it always against the smokers. I have been around a smoker all my life and I'm a smoker myself. I have been sick maybe a total of 6 weeks my whole life. I'm 32 now, so you just keep saying that smokers are always sicker than a non-smoker. THIS IS A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SMOKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wookdog--
The government has been bailing out tobacco growers for something like 70 years. Th the tune of about $530 million dollars between 1996 and 2006. Seems like a waste and a conflict that they are subsidizing the growers and then persecuting the cigarette producers into financing their own demise. When they succeed, what happens to the farmers?
Makes no sense at all. Their gonna miss all that tax money if everybody quits all at once.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is where I got the $530 million in subsidies number.
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?...
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For those that actually cling to the health risk of second hand smoke to employees and children I give you information directly from your beloved WHO(world health organization)
Another little-publicized study was conducted by the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) part of the World Health Organization (WHO). The research ran for 10 years and covered 7 European countries. No matter how it's spun (and it has been) the study concluded there was no statistically significant risk for non-smokers who either lived with or worked with smokers. In fact, the only numbers it arrived at that had actual statistical significance, showed a slightly decreased lung cancer risk in later life among the children of smokers.
Multicenter Case-Control Study Of Exposure To Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Lung Cancer In Europe," Bofetta Et Al, Journal Of The NCI, Vol 90, NO.19, October 7, 1998
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is a link that mentions the above
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/...
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Josies--
I think you are focusing way too hard on the CAE people because that is the hot topic of the week or month or whatever. Maybe you should focus on the capacity laws that limit the # of patrons in your bar at a time. You know, it is YOUR property so the fire marshall or whomever it is, shouldn't be telling YOU how many people you can have in YOUR bar. If you can double to # of patrons in your bar you can really bring in some additional money. Screw the public's safety lets make some cash!!!
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
slvrnblck,
I actually have a really funny story about the fire marshall, our capacity, and us getting shut down. I won't post it on here, because I want to let bygones be bygones.
The last time the fire marshal did an inspection, he found we were actually under capacity, even though we had lines at the doors. My security team does an amazing job. I do, however, like the fact you think outside the box!
Alright then, back to Roadhouse!
Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now the Boffetta (note spelling) study is interested and does seem to support the no-ban proponents. Also interesting are the statements at the Journal of the National Cancer Institute site that support and dispute the study.
Check it out at
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/repri...
Good post, Outsider
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
smoker--
you said
"Why is it always against the smokers. I have been around a smoker all my life and I'm a smoker myself. I have been sick maybe a total of 6 weeks my whole life. I'm 32 now, so you just keep saying that smokers are always sicker than a non-smoker. THIS IS A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SMOKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
First of all, you are only 32 so alot of the ill effects of your smoking are still yet to come. You can look forward to possible heart disease, emphyzema, and potentially lung cancer. I bet you can hardly wait!!!!
Secondly, just because you haven't been sick a whole lot in your life means absolutely nothing. My grandpa was a raging alcoholic but he never developed liver disease....it still doesn't mean it is good for you.
SHS has been proven to have carcinogens in it. It doesn't really matter the amount or the liklihood that one will contract cancer directly from it. All that matters is that it increases the chances that it can cause cancer. If you knew that something that you were doing is directly increasing the liklihood that someone you love or a stranger on the street gets sick, wouldn't you want to stop or at least limit where you do that activity.
Posted by Cliffy (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think we need serial numbers on these cigarettes and then we can find out who is throwing their butts on the ground.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)