IBJNews

State will lose $63M in tobacco payments in 2014

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state is set to lose $63 million in tobacco settlement payments next year after an arbitration panel determined it had not worked hard enough to collect funds from cigarette companies that aren’t part of the deal.

The ruling—issued last month by a three-judge panel—will reduce Indiana’s payment from $131 million to $68 million in 2014.

And there’s the potential for the state to lose even more. The recent ruling addresses claims from payments in 2003; the years 2004 through 2012 remain in dispute.

The state can appeal.

Rep. Greg Porter, D-Indianapolis, said in a statement that his caucus learned about the ruling this week during a meeting with the attorney general’s office.

“Obviously, this will certainly harm our state’s ability to fund any number of programs designed to promote a healthy Indiana,” said Porter, the ranking Democrat on the budget-writing House Ways and Means Committee. “Unlike other states that used tobacco settlement dollars for things like highway funding, Indiana was diligent in using these dollars on health care issues.

“Now it is safe to say many of those initiatives are at risk,” he said.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Luke Kenley said there’s no immediate budget crisis. The state—which has a $2 billion surplus in it’s main checking account—will have the money to continue funding health programs during the current budget cycle, which ends June 30, 2015, he said.

But Kenley, R-Noblesville, said that if tobacco settlement payments continue to be reduced, lawmakers will be forced to take that into consideration when negotiating the next budget. Currently, the money is earmarked for a diverse group of health care programs, including tobacco cessation, children’s health insurance and community mental health centers.

“We’ll have to throw all those things into the mix and determine what gets a higher priority,” Kenley said. “That’s too bad. With the community mental health centers, for example, we might not have addressed that issue if this money had not been available.”

Forty-six states, including Indiana, signed what was called a master settlement agreement in 1998 with four of the largest cigarette manufacturers in the United States. Since then, another 40 or so tobacco companies have joined the settlement, which requires the companies to make annual payments to states.

The payments vary by state, manufacturer and year, but they are primarily based on the number of cigarettes sold.

The settlement allows companies to reduce the amount they pay to states if they’ve lost market share to cigarette manufacturers that aren’t part of the master agreement. States were to be exempt from the cuts if they enacted—and enforced—laws that imposed obligations on any non-participating companies that sold cigarettes within their borders.

But the arbitration panel ruled in September that Indiana and five other states had failed to diligently collect those payments, and therefore the participating tobacco companies could reduce what they paid to the states.

The attorney general’s office did not immediately return a message seeking comment about the case.

Rep. Charlie Brown, the ranking Democrat on the House Public Health Committee, said the state’s tobacco payments have been used for key programs that can’t afford to be cut.

“What is disturbing about this decision is that it appears to be tied to our state’s complete failure to pursue compliance from those cigarette manufacturers that chose not to be a part of the original settlement,” said Brown, who was the author of the original bill that defined the uses of tobacco settlement money.

“Indiana was asked to make an effort to get companies that did not sign the agreement to make payments into an escrow fund if they chose to do business here,” Brown said. “Obviously, they didn’t try hard enough.”

Denise Keane, executive vice president and general counsel of Altria Group, which owns Philip Morris USA, said last month that the decision “sends a strong message about the importance of diligently enforcing the laws that apply to non-participating manufacturers.”

Philip Morris and other companies that had signed onto the agreement sought the payment reductions from most of the states are part of the original tobacco deal. Twenty-two states agreed to settlements last year.

But Indiana and 14 other states opted to take the issue to arbitration instead. The arbitration panel ruled in favor of nine states, saying they had done what was necessary to meet the terms of the original tobacco settlement. But Indiana and five other states lost.

“The non-diligent states could have avoided [the] result altogether had they either diligently enforced their escrow statutes or joined December’s settlement of these issues,” Keane said last month.

States that agreed to terms with the tobacco companies last fall received more than $1 billion in net additional cash payments from the release of their portion of disputed master settlement funds that had been set aside in a separate account. In addition, those states will be protected from any further downward adjustments in their master settlement payments for the years 2003 through 2012, according to Altria.

But Keane said the cigarette companies are “fully prepared to move forward with the arbitration for the 2004 dispute, and for all of the remaining years as well” for Indiana and other states that lost in arbitration.

“That being said, we remain open to resolving these disputes in a way that makes sense for us and the states that did not join the settlement,” she said.

Kenley said he’s urged Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller to appeal the arbitration decision.

“I think there are several things wrong with the way this decision was brought about,” Kenley said.

And he said if the arbitration panel’s ruling stands, it could make it more likely Indiana will lose additional money.

“This is going to go on and on. This is not a one time settlement deal,” Kenley said. “My guess is that whatever precedents are set will become some type of standard for an annual decision. And since Indiana came out on the short end, it bodes particularly bad for us.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Thanks To Patrick
    Thanks, Patrick for correcting another one of our ill-informed citizens. I am an independent voter, but it saddens me to see how many comments I read which are nothing more than anti-Republican rants. It's too bad Indiana has an educational system that releases people into the world who are so poorly educated, ill-informed and lazy that they just blurt things that are jaw-droppingly ignorant. Most of the comments are poorly worded and filled with bad grammar and misspellings that it makes me ashamed for the good teachers out there.
    • smoke $$
      thanks for deleting my post. Will not be renewing my subscription now.
    • Correcting the "Republican" slight by the uninformed
      The loss of payments relates to the actions in 2003. In 2003, Joe Kernan, a Democrat, was Governor. In addition, our Legislature made a conscious decision in 2003 to increase the cigarette tax by 40 cents a pack. This raises revenue more efficiently than the tobacco company payments (because our retailers collect the money at the point of sale).
      • Lost revenues
        Congratulations to the republican legislature, governors and other republican office holders for helping cost the State $63 million dollars in lost revenue by not doing their due diligence regarding the tobacco settlements and collections. How proud these politicians must be of themselves for their lack of oversight. I wonder who they will try and blame this debacle on?

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

      2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

      3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

      4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

      5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.

      ADVERTISEMENT