georgina lambert

Testimony in Opposition to HB 1596 Honorable Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, I am here to express my opposition to House Bill 1596, which proposes to raise taxes on tobacco products, appropriates funds to the University System of New Hampshire, and repeals premiums for certain health care programs. While these components may appear beneficial at first glance, they have adverse implications for the most vulnerable populations in our communities. 1. Impact on Vulnerable Populations The repeal of premiums for the children’s health insurance program and the Granite Advantage Health Care program presents a serious concern. Although the intention may be to alleviate healthcare costs for families, the reality is that many low-income families depend on these programs to manage their healthcare needs. Adverse Underpinnings: By eliminating premiums, the bill compensates for increased state expenditures but does so by targeting those already facing precarious circumstances. As costs rise post-repeal, families may find themselves forced into difficult choices regarding their healthcare that they cannot afford, thus exacerbating existing inequalities. 2. Taxation and Economic Burden The bill’s proposal to raise the tobacco tax has implications that disproportionately affect lower-income individuals. While a tax on tobacco can serve public health objectives by reducing consumption, it can also place an economic strain on families that are already facing financial hardships. Who Benefits: The increase in tobacco tax may lead to a boost in state revenue, benefiting government organizations and perhaps contributing to broader health initiatives. However, the gain comes at the expense of lower-income families who may find themselves devoting more significant portions of their already limited budgets to tobacco products. Who Does Not Benefit: Low-income smokers, who may turn to cheaper or illicit alternatives to cope with higher costs, are likely to be adversely affected by the tax increases. Moreover, this demographic may also suffer from worsening health conditions, limiting their employment opportunities and perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage. 3. Higher Education Funding Concerns While the bill appropriates $18 million annually to the University System of New Hampshire, we must examine how these funds will be utilized. Without clear, equitable distribution plans, there is a risk that only those already positioned to benefit from the university system will gain, while minoritized groups struggle for access. Systemic Barriers: Students from marginalized backgrounds, including first-generation college students and low-income families, may continue to face barriers to higher education despite this funding. Without targeted scholarships or support services, this monetary allocation risks favoring those who already have access to educational resources. 4. Long-term Public Health Implications The bill's components do not adequately take into account public health research indicating that increasing taxes on tobacco can lead to decreased usage. While this intent is commendable, without accompanying support for smoking cessation programs or resources to address addiction, the bill may lead to an increase in health crises among those unable to cope with cessation efforts. Conclusion In conclusion, House Bill 1596 presents significant concerns regarding its potential to adversely impact vulnerable populations. While aiming to increase funding for higher education and public health, it risks further marginalization of low-income families who depend on health care programs and may be disproportionately affected by a tax increase. We must consider not just the immediate implications but also the long-term effects on equity and access for all New Hampshire residents. Thank you for your time and consideration.