Rendez-vous 116
Monday, November 19 2001
Laurie is
Past Chair of the Board of the New England Division of the American Cancer Society
Hopkinton, New Hampshire, USA
Thank you Laurie for accepting our rendez-vous. May I ask you to introduce yourself ?
I am Laurie Storey-Manseau and I have been an American Cancer Society volunteer since 1988. I am the principal of a marketing and public relations agency, and am a graduate of Syracuse University (undergrad) and the University of New Hampshire (grad). I live and work in Hopkinton, New Hampshire. I became involved in tobacco control when, at the age of 10, I tried to convince my aunt to quit smoking by offering to give up something myself if she would quit.
She didn't take me up on the offer and over the past 30-plus years, I've watched the effects of her smoking eat away at the beautiful, vital and energetic woman I adored as a child. In more organized tobacco control efforts, I began anti-tobacco advocacy when I became a volunteer for ACS.
Q1. You have been nominated to the national board of directors of the ACS. Can you explain to us what it means, how the board works, how many members there are, for how long, what are your responsibilities in this position?
I was elected to the National Board of Directors of the American Cancer Society this month at the annual meeting in Anaheim, California. The National Board, which is elected by ACS' National Assembly, is responsible for strategic oversight of the society's program of work. That means that the board has set goals, specifically the 2015 Goals, after which the society's staff determines activities to accomplish those goals. Additionally, the board is responsible for setting policy, monitoring general operations and the National Home Office budget. The board monitors the National CEO's performance by way of a set of policies known as Executive Limitations.
There are 44 members of the National Board of Directors - 11 officers, 24 directors representing the society's 17 divisions (no more than two directors per division in this category), eight directors at large (not representing a particular division, but are elected to bring certain skills to the board), and one Foundation Trustee Liaison (a non-voting member). Members are elected to two-year terms not to exceed three two-year terms.
Q2. The Great American Smokeout took place on November 15. It was its 25th anniversary. How do you feel about cessation efforts? Are they adequate? Could/should they be increased? Are new programs planned by ACS?
The Great American Smokeout is a terrific annual event that raises awareness about the dangers of tobacco, and helps those who want to quit smoking by letting them know there are thousands of people pulling for them. The Great American Smokeout used to focus solely on helping smokers quit. In the past 25 years we've learned that the best way to reduce tobacco use - the leading cause of preventable death and disease - is through prevention. Once a smoker is hooked on highly addictive tobacco products, cessation is possible but not easy. For that reason, you'll now see the Great American Smokeout focusing on policy changes (tobacco taxes, clean indoor air, program funding and FDA regulation) that will ultimately change the context of tobacco as it relates to our children. It's a whole lot easier to prevent this addiction than it is to arrest it mid-stream.
You ask the question if cessation efforts are adequate. I think the better question is, are the efforts that are in place being utilized adequately, and do people who want to quit avail themselves of them. I'm not certain if the problem is that there are not enough resources, or if people really know how to access the help that is available today.
Here's the one thing I'm certain of, however. As long as people continue to smoke, there's a need to educate them about what the addiction really means health-wise - to themselves, to their children, to their loved ones, to you and to me. There's a serious need to educate our health-care professionals - doctors, dentists, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, dental hygienists, alternative care providers, etc. - that they can have a profound influence over smokers, and that they need to ask each and every patient at every visit if they smoke and if they need help quitting.
We are learning that quit attempts are more successful when motivated smokers use a combination of counseling and treatment products. Many smokers do not have access to tobacco treatment services and products - either through their private health insurance, Medicaid or through free health department programs. And, where programs do exist, smokers may not know about them, so we need to do a better job with outreach.
Employers can play a role in helping smokers quit by making all worksites 100 percent smoke-free and by making sure that their employees health plans include tobacco treatment products and services as a standard covered benefit.
As for American Cancer Society cessation resources, they're customized based on regional needs. Those interested in quitting smoking or learning about tobacco control policies should contact their local ACS office to find out about local resources available in their area. This year, our National organization has taken a stand that any smoker who wants to quit can double their chances of successfully kicking the habit by calling the American Cancer Society toll-free at 1-800-ACS-2345, any time, day or night. Smokers will speak with trained specialists about their decision to quit, learn about options to increase their success, and receive printed material designed specifically for where they are in the quitting process. We can also help them find out if they're eligible for a clinical trial offering counseling.
Q3. Smoke-free New England is a multi-state effort to promote tobacco control. Can you tell us how it works? How do you deal with the fact that some states are much more active than others?
I'm so glad you asked this question! Smoke-Free New England was the New England Division Board of Directors' answer to addressing tobacco-related death and disease in our six states. The purpose of Smoke-Free New England is to engage all staff and volunteers in tobacco control work as part of their role with ACS. SFNE includes a college campaign and a business campaign, but the centerpiece of Smoke-Free New England is the Alliance for a Healthy New England - a multi-state legislative tobacco tax campaign.
I think the New England Division of the American Cancer Society made a bold statement in initiating this multi-state challenge and enlisting as partners each state's medical society, health access advocates, and an array of others concerned about tobacco control and access to health care. Smoke-Free New England works on a state-by-state basis, using the leverage of neighboring states on each other.
We know that New York State led the Northeast by doubling its tobacco tax to $1.11 per pack in March 2000. We also know that Canada, to our North, has expensive taxes on tobacco products. New England is ripe for change and surrounded by higher tobacco taxes, and when Smoke-Free New England succeeds, it will result in a significant improvement in the health of residents living in the Northeast United States!
The idea of the Alliance for a Healthy New England is to raise each state's tobacco excise tax by 50 cents. There's something that we as tobacco control advocate clearly understand - higher prices reduce tobacco consumption, especially among youth and pregnant women. Kids are the most sensitive to price increases. If you can stop kids from smoking, as they grow older, there's a higher chance they will not smoke as adults.
Tobacco tax increases are gaining popularity coast-to-coast. Washington state voters just approved a ballot initiative to increase their state tobacco tax by 60-cents to $1.42 per pack. The question passed by a 65-35 margin! In New England, we've seen successes in Maine and Rhode Island, with both states increasing their tobacco taxes to $1.00 per pack. Connecticut and Massachusetts are looking seriously into enacting a tax because of state budget needs. Vermont has historically had strong support from its Governor - a physician by training - for raising tobacco taxes. And, New Hampshire, where I live, still retains the legislation from last year's session for further debate. (That's a big step for a state that calls itself the "Live Free or Die" state.)
Each state is different and we respect that individuality of state legislatures. Some states have moved quickly; others have moved at a slower pace. For our part, we've taken every opportunity we can to educate legislators across New England about tobacco. We have advocates working in each of the Statehouses, we have sponsored and co-sponsored an array of conferences on health and tobacco. And, we've enlisted the media to carry our message to those who are in a position to enact a tax increase, and those in a position to influence legislators - namely voters!
We know it will be a multi-year effort. Signals from our first year are good!
Q4. Many states did not use their MSA monies to fund tobacco control programs. Among the few that did have comprehensive programs we see now the threats of budget cuts (like in Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin). How do you assess the situation today for the US?
Personally, I think it's a sin that the MSA monies in all states did not go for their intended purposes. And, I think the tobacco companies were brilliant in negotiating what they did with each of the states so that there are no requirements for tobacco control use. They knew state legislators would be all too tempted to use "free" money for all sorts of purposes other than tobacco control.
That said, I'm a realist, too, and know that state legislatures must grab every dime they can for pressing budgetary needs. And, there are a lot of them!
We must applaud those states that have resisted the temptation to raid MSA monies and have chosen to put them to use in reducing the burden of tobacco-related disease on their residents. Now, we must work with them, and with all the others to help them understand that a continued and increased investment in anti-tobacco efforts will be substantially reduce their burdens in the future. While I do understand that it's difficult for legislators to see beyond a one- or two-year timeframe, I also have faith that these people who selflessly perform public service do have the best interests of their communities in mind and that includes the healthy futures of those communities.
However, lawmakers must not walk away from the need to fund state-wide tobacco control programs. We know that such programs reduce tobacco use and save lives and health care dollars. State legislatures must be compelled to fully fund these programs through the MSA funds, tobacco taxes, general revenues or a combination thereof. If you only consider the astronomical cost of caring for sick smokers through public tax dollars (Medicaid and Medicare), you'll see that we simply can't afford not to invest in tobacco control now.
Q5. The tobacco control poster I prefer is the 12 things to do instead of smoking designed by Seymour Chwast. But how old it is now? 20 years old? I don't really know. I have not seen new posters of this caliber. Do you think such posters are an outdated medium? Could new efforts go into the production of posters? Beside the paper based posters I also very much appreciated the quarterly World Smoking and Health that was discontinued in 1994. As a communication specialist and a tobacco control advocate how do you feel about the absence of a regular publication about tobacco control?
Messages are received and understood by people through a variety of media, not just one way. What we need messages to do is to educate, inform, challenge and support.
I believe that tobacco control advocates should have as many tools as they can to educate, persuade, coerce, argue, sway and influence. To that end, that means posters (with positive messaging), newsletters, websites, television, radio, e-mail, and on and on. Some people appear to be motivated by messages that expose the tobacco industry's manipulative practices; some are drawn to cessation by in-your-face depictions of real-life human consequences of smoking; others may prefer a softer more loving approach. As with marketing any product or behavior, there's no silver bullet message for tobacco control. We'll employ every tactic we can. Whatever it takes!
Q6. Is there anything else you would like to add?
Just to say thank you for the opportunity to participate in Rendez-vous.
Thank you Laurie for taking the time to be with us today.
Rendez-vous is supported by a contract from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Comments