Supported by
Poison Control Centers May Be Budget Victims
California poison experts answer about 900 calls every day from people worried about a child who swallowed a dangerous chemical, someone who ate a wild mushroom or another potential poisoning.
Come this fall, those calls may go unanswered.
As part of an effort to close a $24.3 billion budget deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed eliminating the state’s $6 million contribution to its four poison control centers. California would be the only state without a poison control program, said Sandy Giffin, president of the American Association of Poison Control Centers.
The United States has a single poison control hot line 800-222-1222 available all day, every day for questions about potential poisonings. About two million people call the hot line annually. Half the calls concern children 5 and younger.
Calls to the poison hot line, like those to 911, are redirected to local call centers financed with local money. One state’s poison calls could be answered by experts elsewhere, Ms. Giffin said, but the state would have to pay for that service. “If one state can no longer sustain the cost of a poison center, no other state is going to be able to provide that service,” she said.
The federal government provides less than 20 percent of poison center financing, and the rest comes primarily from the states. Given the budget constraints most states face, poison control experts worry that California could set an ominous precedent by eliminating the nation’s largest program. Michigan has reduced its financing and will downsize in July to one poison center, from two.
The California Assembly approved a budget on June 25 that restored half the poison center’s financing, but Mr. Schwarzenegger said he would veto it.
“Like a lot of other things the state government has been doing, we simply cannot continue to provide that service with a 27 percent drop in revenue,” said Aaron McLear, Mr. Schwarzenegger’s press secretary.
Poison experts nationally are watching, concerned that if California’s centers are allowed to close, it bodes poorly for them, said Stuart E. Heard, executive director of the California Poison Control System. “Many poison centers are poorly funded and on the brink,” he said.
Poison control saves states money by preventing avoidable emergency room visits and hospitalizations, Dr. Heard said.
Poisoning is the second leading cause of death from injuries after car accidents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which estimates that 35,000 people died from poisoning in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available.
The Institute of Medicine estimates that each year more than four million episodes of poisoning occur, of which 300,000 lead to hospitalization. In a 2004 report, the institute concluded that poison control was an essential public health service and recommended that Congress stabilize its financing.
In 2005, the 61 poison centers in the nation cost an estimated $100 million to operate. Studies have found that for each dollar spent on poison control, $7 is saved. Without a poison hot line, people will go directly to the emergency room or call 911, and the dispatchers, who are not toxicology experts, will almost certainly send an ambulance, Dr. Heard said.
In the late 1980s, Ms. Giffin said, Louisiana eliminated its poison control program but reinstated it soon after, once officials realized that the program saved the state money.
California could pay another state to take over its hot line service, but the poison control’s other core public health duties, including data collection, bioterrorism and disaster response and public education, would be difficult to replace, said Jeffrey A. Alexander, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
Advertisement