June 16, 2002|By Gerard Shields | Gerard Shields,SUN STAFF
Millions in tobacco settlement funds for smoking cessation and cancer screening programs throughout Maryland have not been spent because of the state's inability to quickly distribute the money.
Many counties also were unprepared to spend the money when it was finally made available.
Baltimore County gave back $3.1 million of the $3.4 million it received through the state's Cigarette Restitution Fund, the account into which Maryland deposits funds obtained from a $206 billion nationwide tobacco settlement.
In all, Maryland counties returned $8.9 million in settlement funds they were unable to spend in fiscal year 2000-2001, the first year of the program. The state doled out $19.4 million during that year.
Although the returned funds are redeposited in tobacco settlement accounts for future use, the failure to spend the money defeats the purpose of the program: to get Marylanders to stop using tobacco and to get them tested for colon and other cancers.
"We didn't have a plan in gear," said Carlessia A. Hussein, director of the state restitution program. "We're building this train track as we're driving it."
Assistant Attorney General Carmen Shepherd, who worked on the tobacco case, expressed shock when told that Baltimore County returned 91 percent of the money it received the first year.
"You're kidding!" Shepherd said. "That would be bad. The tobacco lawsuit will only be decided by how we use the money."
A national anti-tobacco advocacy group called the lack of spending "outrageous."
"It's very surprising and it's quite shocking," said John Banzhaf, a George Washington University law professor who heads Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). "How long does it take to spend money to hire ads on television? How hard is it to hire someone on a contract?"
The Cigarette Restitution Fund was set up in 1999 after Maryland joined 45 other states, five U.S. territories and the District of Columbia in a $206 billion tobacco settlement. Maryland is to receive $4.4 billion during the next two decades. In addition to cancer prevention and smoking-cessation programs, the money is to be used for cancer research and to help tobacco farmers grow alternative crops.
The state ranks ninth nationally in the number of cancer deaths, with lung cancer claiming one in three victims. The settlement with the tobacco companies was designed to provide money to create programs and advertising to halt the spread of cancer and to get people to quit smoking.
About $100 million is designated annually for the Maryland restitution fund, which is to be spent in two areas. Municipalities receive grants for cancer education, prevention and treatment, much of it aimed at colorectal cancer. A second grant is for programs to help people stop smoking or to prevent them from starting.
Counties received partial payments in the first year because of the lateness of the grants. Hussein said the grants were delayed by requirements in the legislation establishing the fund. The law stated that studies had to be conducted in each county on cancer risk and tobacco use before it could be determined how much each jurisdiction should receive.
In addition, each county had to form community coalitions to determine the best way to spend the money for both programs.
As a result, some counties didn't get their money for the 2001 fiscal year - which ran from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001 - until May 2001.
"It takes a while to get a new plan in place," Hussein said.
That was the case with Baltimore County. The county received $780,530 in anti-tobacco money in May 2001. When the fiscal year ended June 30, the county returned $700,000.
"I would not scramble to spend the money because the money is going back to the [restitution] fund," said Dr. Michelle A. Leverett, county health officer. "We have to be responsible."
The county received more than $2.6 million in cancer prevention money in February 2001 and returned $2.4 million.
"When you hear these numbers you think, `These guys didn't spend anything,'" Leverett said. "It's very difficult to spend three-quarters of a million dollars in five weeks."
Yet other jurisdictions were prepared to use the money. Baltimore City received $766,406 in anti-tobacco money and spent every penny. The city also received about $2.99 million in cancer prevention money and returned $296,753.
"Some of the counties are more adept and have better plans," Hussein said. "It's going to take several years to get it exactly right."
Among the adept was St. Mary's County, which received $116,061 in anti-tobacco money and $436,549 in cancer prevention money and returned $6,221. The key, county officials said, was to have programs in place before the money arrived.
"We had everything organized before the money came out," said Mary Novotny, a spokeswoman for the St. Mary's Health Department. "We started a little earlier than the rest."
Likewise, Washington County received $176,383 in anti-tobacco money and $383,857 in cancer money, returning only $49,963.
