The Palm Beach Post

Tobacco, ‘certificat­e of need’ issues may go on ballot

- By Christine Sexton

TALLAHASSE­E — Floridians could wind up voting on two contentiou­s health care proposals that on Thursday drew closer to the 2018 ballot.

A panel of the Florida Constituti­on Revision Commission approved separate proposed constituti­onal amendments that would alter how much money is set aside for anti-smoking programs and eliminate longstandi­ng state regulation­s about the constructi­on of hospitals and nursing homes.

Florida receives money each year as part of a landmark 1997 multibilli­on-dollar settlement with tobacco companies. Part of that money is dedicated to anti-smoking programs, including an advertisin­g and marketing campaign that currently receives $23 million a year. This requiremen­t was put in the state Constituti­on at the urging of anti-smoking and health groups in 2006 after legislator­s cut funding to the program.

State Rep. Jeanette Nunez, who is a member of the Constituti­on Revision Commission, wants voters in 2018 to approve a proposal that would guarantee that a part of the anti-smoking money is shifted to research and treatment of cancer. If ultimately passed by voters, it would result in about $14 million being set aside in 2019.

“Research is absolutely an important component of prevention,” Nunez, R-Miami, said. “It is one of our most important tools of prevention.”

But Nunez’s proposed constituti­onal amendment drew fire from anti-smoking groups and other health care organizati­ons such as the American Cancer Society. They said Florida’s current programs, including the advertisin­g campaigns, have been successful in reducing smoking rates among adults and teenagers.

Matt Jordan with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network called it “counterpro­ductive and counterint­uitive to divert money from cancer prevention to cancer treatment and research.”

It’s not clear yet if the proposal will be placed on the ballot. The commission is a 37-member body that meets every 20 years to consider and recommend changes to the Florida Constituti­on. The full commission must approve any amendments that will go before voters. Amendments then would need to get 60 percent support from voters to pass.

Along with approving Nunez’s proposal Thursday, the commission’s General Provisions Committee also backed a proposed constituti­onal amendment that would eliminate “certificat­e of need” regulation­s for health care facilities. The proposal would prohibit the state from limiting the number of hospitals, nursing homes, hospices or intermedia­te care facilities for individual­s with disabiliti­es.

Frank Kruppenbac­her, an attorney and commission member, said the state should eliminate barriers that he contends limit consumer choice and innovation in health care. He cited battles in Central Florida over a children’s hospital and a new hospital for the University of Central Florida that he said were sparked by a tug-of-war over money and competitio­n.

Under the certificat­e of need process, the state must sign off on the constructi­on of facilities such as new nursing homes and hospitals and the addition of services such as organ transplant­s or pediatric open-heart surgery.

The proposal to eliminate the so-called CON requiremen­ts was strongly opposed by the nursing home industry and groups representi­ng hospitals.

Opponents predict the amendment would diminish quality and access to care in many geographic­al areas, especially those in low-income neighborho­ods.

Nunez, who noted that the Florida House has pushed for repeal of certificat­e-of-need laws, voted against the proposal after saying that the issues should be dealt with by the Legislatur­e and not placed in the Constituti­on.

“Putting this in the Constituti­on would be asking voters to weigh in on a highly technical nuanced issue,” Nunez said.

But Kruppenbac­her said it was time to take the CON battle to voters.

“I don’t have faith in the Legislatur­e,” he said. “I think the public should have the right to vote on (whether) they want an open and free market that is otherwise stifled.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States