Maine is a place where the state government has committed itself to run as though it was a good business. So when it announced it was proposing to cut funds that help Maine Medicaid patients to quit smoking in order to save state Medicaid dollars, I thought I would set aside the fact it is a bad health care decision and try to make the business case for the proposed cut.

On the face of it, the first part of the business case is simple. Cut Maine Medicaid (MaineCare) payment for smoking cessation treatment and save the state $400,000 annually in taxpayer dollars. That helps reduce Maine’s short-term state budget costs, which cannot be covered by current tax revenues. Again, lousy patient care move, but I understand the need to save money.

The problem is the bill for that decision is coming right back at us, in the near term, and it is going to be a much bigger bill than the $400,000 saved. That’s because investing in smoking cessation help for Medicaid patients saves money in the near term, in prevented heart attacks and other illnesses. While the federal government might allow MaineCare to bail out of smoking cessation coverage for poor Mainers, it is unlikely to allow it to bail out of heart attack coverage. When those patients show up clutching their chests, you and are going to have to pay.

No other state in America has cut these benefits, but other states have studied this question. Massachusetts found that, within little more than a year after a dollar was invested in smoking cessation programs for its Medicaid recipients, the state saved taxpayers $3.12 in reduced admissions to hospitals for heart problems caused in part by smoking. It spent an average of $183 for each Medicaid patient who participated in the program, and saved taxpayers an average of $571 per participant in hospital costs. This experience is consistent with studies elsewhere that have shown good returns on investment in smoking cessation programs.

Maine government’s proposal to cut $400,000 will lose it about $800,000 in matching federal dollars, removing about $1.2 million annually from statewide efforts to reduce smoking among MaineCare patients. Assuming Maine’s experience is similar to Massachusetts’, that $1.2 million invested annually in smoking cessation and thereby disease prevention might save Maine and national taxpayers about $3.6 million annually in hospital expenses (oh, and prevent untold misery for patients and their families).

Let’s be conservative and estimate that annual savings is only $2 million. That means we are saving $400,000 annually for Maine taxpayers, but then passing on to them and other Americans an extra $2 million in additional state and federal tax costs. How does that make any kind of business sense?

One could argue — and state government representatives have — that those MaineCare patients can go elsewhere for help with smoking cessation treatment costs, and that’s true. But there are far too many smokers in Maine for those other programs to absorb MaineCare’s share of the patients, and none has enough money to replace $1.2 million lost to the treatment of Maine’s second-most dangerous addiction (No. 1 is our addiction to our couches). There is simply no way to add up alternatives to anything but a huge net loss in smoking illness prevention investment in Maine.

In addition, those smokers on MaineCare who quit with MaineCare’s help might then not be smoking when they get jobs in Maine businesses with insurance benefits (virtually all of which cover smoking cessation treatments because it makes sound business sense to do so). Failure to treat them when they are on MaineCare punts their problem — and their higher health insurance costs — to Maine businesses, which can hardly afford those costs.

Maine’s government must get permission from the federal government to make this change, and the feds should turn Maine’s Medicaid managers down. The real “no way” answer, however, should come from the taxpayers and legislators of Maine unless the state can explain how saving money today that will have to be paid back twice over is the kind of business for which Maine is now open.

Erik Steele, a physician in Bangor, is chief medical officer of Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems.

Join the Conversation

18 Comments

  1. Open for business, but not for long…. 

    “Maine government’s proposal to cut $400,000 will lose it about $800,000 in matching federal dollars, removing about $1.2 million annually from statewide efforts to reduce smoking among MaineCare patients. Assuming Maine’s experience is similar to Massachusetts’, that $1.2 million invested annually in smoking cessation and thereby disease prevention might save Maine and national taxpayers about $3.6 million annually in hospital expenses (oh, and prevent untold misery for patients and their families).” 

    D’oh !

  2. Of course Dr. Steele has a very good point, but what about his corporation, EMMC, cutting the no. of nurses in recent years, with familiar complaints of inadequate service for patients? Of course the good Dr. Steele would never comment on the corporation that pays him, as a top administrator, a huge salary. 

  3. Dear Dr Steele, as a UK National Health Service worker with a background in Public Health I think that your reasoned analysis is absolutely spot-on. 

    What you are describing is a classic short-sighted trick of public administrations across the world, i.e. short term gain but long term loss.Using Maine’s reasoning therefore, things like Disease Prevention, Fire Prevention, Crime Prevention, Preparing to Defend One’s Country should all be initiatives that should be consigned to the public dustbin in the supposed cause of saving money, and you deal with the immense problems one by one as and when they occur, i.e. no preparation at all.IMHO it will prove a long term disastrous legacy if efforts to help Mainers quit smoking are abandoned … if they are … then get ready for much much larger bills for someone in the near future.

  4. LePage is short-sighted and does not have the IQ or compassion to see beyond his hate.  He’s has all the attitude of a drunk and their shitty outlook on all those around them. This Country feeds the world. This Country has spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and they hate us. Why is it we are so selfish with ourselves. Congress has seen fit to hand out money overseas with no expections but they want the middle class and poor here at home to bite the bullet and suffer a bit.  Yes, there are alot of people out there getting free rides with taxpayer money on both ends of the economic ladder. The poor have their welfare and by God so don’t the rich !! The middle man is the one without the free ride.

    1. 80% of the people of Maine did not vote in support of your ideology. Legislators voted 91% of the time IN SUPPORT of the current governor..all legislators….dems and repubs…
      your either in the minority of maine citizens (the 20% range) or you are in the minority of your legislators who support your ideology (the 9%range)..either way, you have alot of work to do…..might want to branch out away from the BDN as they only reach about 16% of the population in the areas that they serve….hey, they may be joining you in the 9% catagory fairly soon….

      1. 99% of the 91% of the time the legislature votes with the Governor is on everyday things that the state needs.  When the Governor does anything like this he gets less than 40% voting with him.

      2. That 91% number is such bullcrap.  If you count procedural votes, the Republicans and Democrats in Washington D.C agree most of the time as well.  Does not reflect reality in any way.

  5. It looks like  the LePage administraion is doing exactly what it has so passionately accused previous administrations of doing – kicking the can down the road. Save a dollar today so that it becomes the problem of the next administraion times four. This is not to say that previous administrations are at all guiltless. They have done the same thing though not with such a big multiplier of future impact.
     

  6. In a 2006 report from the Center for Disease Control, the cost for Maine per pack of cigarettes was:
         Medical costs:  $6.37
         Lost productivity costs:  $5.23
         Medicaid costs:  $2.29
    So… anything we can do to reduce the number of packs of cigarettes smoked will come back to benefit all of us.  And for those that complain about the cost of tax put on cigarettes, it doesn’t come close to what all of us are paying to “clean up” the mess left from years of smoking.

  7. The numbers of American’s addicted to smoking remains at roughly 20% and has been at that number for decades no matter how much money the government continues to throw at the problem.   Continued spending on trying to reduce that number has reached and passed the point of diminishing returns.  For every individual that the State’s $400K helps stop smoking  and reduces their concomitant medical expenses, a new smoker will take their place and the state will still end up spending the same amount on their health care costs associated with their addiction to smoking.  
     
    Unless Dr. Steele can prove empirically that spending this $400K of taxpayer funds will reduce the smoking population below the current standard 20% then this money is nothing more than a feel good expenditure that does little to affect the overall issue.   
     
    As one of the fewer and fewer actual taxpayers in the state, I can empirically prove that  getting my share of the $400K would back would at least improve my financial health.  If the good doctor wants to really improve health care in the state, pay his EMHC nurses more so that they can ensure proper medical outcomes instead.  
     

  8. If one qualify s for Maine-care how does one afford to smoke, these days at $14.00 a pack at Hollywood Casino, I don’t know what they are at the regular store but they are expensive. I believe the better choice ,to audit each person as to how they budget for smokes ? It’s obvious that child support, food etc suffers from the addition. Bring it out in the open, it is the only way to resolve along with helping the person, stop. At even $100.00 a carton per week, tell me how any person qualifies for MaineCare, etc ?  Something is not right ?

  9. I think if this (or any program was successful) it would have been showing SOME results…
    oh yea, success is defined as reducing whatever the programs goals are…not success in spending more & more money each and ever year while showing no gains in any catogory…

    I didn’t see any figures like this…..457 people on mainecare using smoking cessation products.in Jan……376 people on mainecare using smoking cessation products in Dec of same year. You cannot accuratly measure savings to a program like he has listed here, as that is taking a number forward that is not known….who gets sick while smoking and what do they get sick of….a smoker who gets a few ear infections a year is different than emphesema.

    Pack a day  $7 x 7 days =&49 x 4 weeks =$196 x 12 = $2352 per year….this is approx what I spend in healthcare costs for my family of 4 per year..this includes yearly docs visits and dental…of course no broken arms, accidents, unexpected disease….these smokers may not have health insurance due to poverty but they could certainly pay for thier own basic healthcare with the saved money…until they got a job that pays for healthcare….

  10. LePage is thinking like a businessman, not a leader of a community.

    A CEO only thinks about short term (this quarter or maybe two quarters) profit whereas a leader of a government has to think about the future as well as the present.  That is why a business leader makes a lousy government leader.  All we need to do is look at our first CEO President GW Bush.

  11. Dr. Steele I agree with you 100% but I am afraid you have put to many facts in your article, our governor doesn’t work to well with facts.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *