Earmarking Excise Taxes on Recreational Cannabis for Investments in Mental Health

Purtle, Jonathan; Brinson, Kylie; Stadnick, Nicole A.

doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.0292

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, there is political apathy in taxing the cannabis sector for mental health investment in Africa even though cannabis consumption worsens mental ill-health [ 9 ]. Countries like Canada and the United States of America ( ) are using cannabis taxation to fund mental health and other public health programs [ 10 , 11 ]. Such taxation strategies could be adopted in Africa to mitigate the economic burden of mental ill-health.…”

Section: What Could Be a Solution To The Mental Health Crisis In Africa?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Who should pay the bill for the mental health crisis in Africa?

Mostert,

Nesic,

Udeh-Momoh

et al. 2024

Public Health in Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: What Could Be a Solution To The Mental Health Crisis In Africa?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Who should pay the bill for the mental health crisis in Africa?

Mostert,

Nesic,

Udeh-Momoh

et al. 2024

Public Health in Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The current study focuses on the implementation of state and local governmental policies that earmark tax revenue for behavioral health (i.e., mental health and substance use disorder) services in the United States (27). Detailed descriptions of these tax policies and the larger policy implementation study from which data are drawn are provided elsewhere (27)(28)(29)(30)(31). In short, an earmarked tax is one placed on a specific base (e.g., goods, property, income) for which revenue is dedicated to a specific purpose (32)(33)(34).…”

Section: Policies That Earmarked Taxes For Behavioral Health Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acceptability and feasibility of policy implementation strategies for taxes earmarked for behavioral health services

Purtle,

Stadnick,

Wynecoop

et al. 2024

Front. Health Serv.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study's aims are to: (1) Compare the acceptability and feasibility of five types of implementation strategies that could be deployed to increase the reach of evidence-based practices (EBPs) with revenue from policies that earmark taxes for behavioral health services, and (2) Illustrate how definitions of implementation strategies and measures of acceptability and feasibility can be used in policy-focused implementation science research.MethodsWeb-based surveys of public agency and community organization professionals involved with earmarked tax policy implementation were completed in 2022–2023 (N = 211, response rate = 24.9%). Respondents rated the acceptability and feasibility of five types of implementation strategies (dissemination, implementation process, integration, capacity-building, and scale-up). Aggregate acceptability and feasibility scores were calculated for each type of strategy (scoring range 4–20). Analyses of variance compared scores across strategies and between organizational actor types.FindingsFor acceptability, capacity-building strategies had the highest rating (M = 16.3, SD = 3.0), significantly higher than each of the four other strategies, p ≤ . 004), and scale-up strategies had the lowest rating (M = 15.6). For feasibility, dissemination strategies had the highest rating (M = 15.3, significantly higher than three of the other strategies, p ≤ .002) and scale-up strategies had the lowest rating (M = 14.4).ConclusionsCapacity-building and dissemination strategies may be well-received and readily deployed by policy implementers to support EBPs implementation with revenue from taxes earmarked for behavioral health services. Adapting definitions of implementation strategies for policy-focused topics, and applying established measures of acceptability and feasibility to these strategies, demonstrates utility as an approach to advance research on policy-focused implementation strategies.

show abstract

“…A 2022 commentary described why earmarking recreational marijuana excise taxes might be a promising financing strategy for mental health crisis services and summarized the extent to which these taxes have been earmarked for mental health. 45 In sum, earmarked taxes for mental health services have received some scholarly attention but have not been the focus of systematic inquiry.…”

Section: Earmarked Taxes and Health Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The commentary identified other jurisdictions earmarking taxes for mental health services (e.g., Denver, Colorado; Chicago, Illinois; St. Louis, Missouri) but did not provide details about these taxes. A 2022 commentary described why earmarking recreational marijuana excise taxes might be a promising financing strategy for mental health crisis services and summarized the extent to which these taxes have been earmarked for mental health 45 . In sum, earmarked taxes for mental health services have received some scholarly attention but have not been the focus of systematic inquiry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Earmarked Taxes for Mental Health Services in the United States: A Local and State Legal Mapping Study

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Local governments are increasingly adopting policies that earmark taxes for mental health services, and approximately 30% of the US population lives in a jurisdiction with such a policy. Policies earmarking taxes for mental health services are heterogenous in their design, spending requirements, and oversight. In many jurisdictions, the annual per capita revenue generated by these taxes exceeds that of some major federal funding sources for mental health. Context State and local governments have been adopting taxes that earmark (i.e., dedicate) revenue for mental health. However, this emergent financing model has not been systematically assessed. We sought to identify all jurisdictions in the United States with policies earmarking taxes for mental health services and characterize attributes of these taxes. Methods A legal mapping study was conducted. Literature reviews and 11 key informant interviews informed search strings. We then searched legal databases (HeinOnline, Cheetah tax repository) and municipal data sources. We collected information on the year the tax went into effect, passage by ballot initiative (yes/no), tax base, tax rate, and revenue generated annually (gross and per capita). Findings We identified 207 policies earmarking taxes for mental health services (95.7% local, 4.3% state, 95.7% passed via ballot initiative). Property taxes (73.9%) and sales taxes/fees (25.1%) were most common. There was substantial heterogeneity in tax design, spending requirements, and oversight. Approximately 30% of the US population lives in a jurisdiction with a tax earmarked for mental health, and these taxes generate over $3.57 billion annually. The median per capita annual revenue generated by these taxes was $18.59 (range = $0.04‐$197.09). Per capita annual revenue exceeded $25.00 in 63 jurisdictions (about five times annual per capita spending for mental health provided by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). Conclusions Policies earmarking taxes for mental health services are diverse in design and are an increasingly common local financing strategy. The revenue generated by these taxes is substantial in many jurisdictions.

show abstract

Earmarking Excise Taxes on Recreational Cannabis for Investments in Mental Health

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Who should pay the bill for the mental health crisis in Africa?

Who should pay the bill for the mental health crisis in Africa?

Acceptability and feasibility of policy implementation strategies for taxes earmarked for behavioral health services

Earmarked Taxes for Mental Health Services in the United States: A Local and State Legal Mapping Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About