Supervisors Offer Tobacco Funds Proposal

County health programs would receive the lion’s share of money under an ordinance proposed by county supervisors that would govern how $10 million in annual tobacco settlement payments is spent--but nonprofit groups and private hospitals would also qualify for a share.

The money would fund everything from smoking prevention programs to mental health services under a five-year strategic plan subject to annual review by two oversight committees appointed by the supervisors. Final say on fund expenditures would come from the supervisors, who will consider the ordinance at their Tuesday meeting.

“This is to guarantee the public and Community Memorial that we will spend the money on health care,” said Supervisor Frank Schillo, who helped draft the ordinance. “There isn’t anything else we can do that’s more solid than this.”

Under the plan, supervisors would split the annual disbursements in four broad categories. Oversight committees would review each category annually and decide how to dole out the money.

For next year’s distributions, which include an extra $5.3 million left from the current year’s settlement payout, supervisors would divide the money as follows:

* Community health care programs, including tobacco education, mental health services and elder care, would receive about $9.1 million, or 59% of the money. The county provides many of these services.

* Nonprofit groups dedicated to health care issues would receive $1.9 million, or 12%.

* Private hospitals and doctors would be given $3.4 million, or 22%, to offset the cost of indigent care.

* And $765,000, about 5%, would be spent on securing grants and putting up money matched by state and federal resources to add as much as $5 million a year.

“This spells out what areas of health care we will be spending the money on,” said Kathy Long, chairwoman of the Board of Supervisors. “It sets up a good system of checks and balances and brings to the table nonprofits, private organizations, and helps with the education side. It’s a win-win for everyone.”

The proposed ordinance comes less than two weeks before county voters will decide the fate of Measure O, which would transfer control of $260 million in tobacco money from county officials to at least three private hospitals. Measure O is sponsored by Ventura-based Community Memorial Hospital, a private care facility.

Measure O proponents criticized the ordinance, arguing it still offers no guarantee any money would go to health care beyond the first five years of the ordinance. That leaves another 20 years of tobacco money disbursements unaccounted for, said Michael D. Bakst, director of Community Memorial Hospital.

“The proposed ordinance is a hollow campaign stunt--political sleight of hand carefully crafted to say one thing and do another,” Bakst said. “It’s a back-room maneuver by back-bench politicians whose only interest is their own self-preservation.”

Supervisors counter there is no “sunset clause” in the ordinance, meaning it would not necessarily expire at the end of five years. The oversight committees, made up of residents appointed by board members, can choose to extend the disbursement plan on an annual basis for as many years as they see fit.

Alternately, however, supervisors could decide to change the allocations from one year to the next, cutting off funding for private hospitals after a year or two, critics say. And the Board of Supervisors could rescind the ordinance with a simple majority vote.

“And that makes this a deal-breaker,” said Jim Lott, vice president of the Healthcare Assn. of Southern California, which represents local private hospitals. “We need a 25-year commitment. And this board is not willing make that commitment. That’s not good enough.”

Long said the civilian oversight committees will keep political pressure on supervisors to spend the money on health care.

The plan calls for board members to appoint three people, selected from a list of nominees chosen by the chief administrative officer, to sit on a finance oversight committee. The committee’s chief responsibility would be to advise board members on how much money is available for various programs.

An evaluation and allocation oversight committee would be made up of 11 county residents, all appointed by board members, six of whom would come from a list of nominees chosen by officials from the health care industry. Their main responsibility would be recommending how the money should be spent.

“From the beginning,” Long said, “the board has decided to spend this money on health care. I don’t see any time when there would be a change in that philosophy because you would have the citizens sitting on these committees who would challenge the board on that.”