Spirit of a Settlement

Emergencies sometimes require extraordinary measures--but most emergencies could be avoided with appropriate foresight and caution.

And so while we support Ventura County’s one-time use of this year’s tobacco settlement allotment to stabilize its current budgetary trauma, we urge the Board of Supervisors to stand by its pledge to spend future installments on health care programs.

Why? Because the mega-lawsuit that produced this settlement from tobacco companies argued that states, counties and cities deserved reimbursement for treating sick smokers and educating children not to become smokers.

Although the settlement money can legally be used for just about anything, spending it on programs unrelated to health care would break faith with the public on whose behalf the suit was brought.

On that much we agree with Community Memorial Hospital director Michael D. Bakst, who last week announced a ballot initiative to force Ventura County to spend its share of the tobacco settlement on health care programs. But we do not agree that a ballot measure is the way to go about it. Such an initiative would limit the Board of Supervisors’ ability to respond to future emergencies, as does the ordinance that restricts income from Proposition 172 to narrowly defined public safety programs.

And we certainly do not support Bakst’s self-serving initiative, which would block rival Ventura County Medical Center from receiving a penny of the $250 million the county is expected to take in over the next 25 years. That defies common sense--VCMC and its satellite clinics are the county’s primary vehicle for delivering health care to those in need. It also reveals what Bakst is really up to here, and it isn’t pretty.

The struggle between these two neighboring hospitals has dragged on for years and cost Ventura County taxpayers many millions that should have been spent directly on health care.

In 1996, the private, nonprofit Community Memorial waged a $1.6-million campaign to block a proposed VCMC outpatient center, which Bakst viewed as unfair government competition for his hospital’s privately insured patients. After voters defeated the expansion plan, the Board of Supervisors approved a scaled-down proposal--then rescinded the approval after CHM threatened a lawsuit.

Refighting that costly battle is clearly one way the tobacco settlement money should not be spent.

Although cities that receive a portion of the settlement funds are finding a variety of ways to spend it, in California the responsibility for providing public health care rests with the counties.

Most of them are targeting their tobacco settlement windfall for health-related needs. Los Angeles County intends to use most of its to replace County-USC Medical Center; San Diego County is considering using most of its for health care programs.

In Orange County, climbing back from bankruptcy, supervisors plan to spend most of the tobacco money to cut debt and add jail cells. There, as in Ventura County, an initiative drive has begun to force the money to be spent on health care.

We urge voters to see through Community Memorial’s counterproductive campaign and reject this self-serving ballot measure.

At the same time, while we support this year’s one-time use of the funds to resolve the budget crisis, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to use the tobacco settlement for the purposes outlined in the lawsuit: To care for ailing smokers and to help children understand why they should avoid taking up a habit that is ultimately painful and expensive for everyone concerned.