Slashing of problem gambling earmark is more costly in long run, state is warned

By Liz Benston

Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010 | 2 a.m.

A state proposal to eliminate government funding for problem gambling treatment, education and research will not only hurt the lives of compulsive gamblers and their families but will also cost the state by taxing its health care and criminal justice systems, treatment advocates warn.

The budget cut is expected to free up $1.8 million for the Nevada Health and Human Services Department to spend on its core mission of assisting needy children, seniors and the disabled.

In the current budget crisis, all state social services, even the hospitalization of the mentally ill, will be diminished by proposed cuts totaling $132 million, department spokesman Ben Kieckhefer notes. Programs to treat alcohol and drug dependence, for example, are likely to take a cut of at least 10 percent.

“Providing medical care for the disabled and children” is taking precedence over problem gambling treatment and research, Kieckhefer says.

The state has awarded grants to combat problem gambling since 2006. The money comes from a fraction of the revenue from slot machine licensing fees, and the allocation was hard won. Advocates had lobbied for it for more than a decade.

Gambling addicts have always been a low priority because most people see them as people who created their own problem, says Robert Hunter, whose Problem Gambling Center treatment facility in Las Vegas is one of about a dozen recipients of state funding.

Now that the state is considering cutting off the money, Hunter says he knows “a lot of people might be thinking, ‘Why should we help those gambling bums?’ ”

The answer is: plenty of reasons, Hunter and other advocates say.

“There’s no serious question anymore that an untreated problem gambler is going to cost the state more than spending money to prevent the problem or mitigate the damage — we’ve known this for 30 years from substance abuse,” says Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling in Washington, D.C.

Problem gamblers sometimes commit crimes to feed their gambling and tend to suffer from physical ailments at a higher rate than the general population, which makes them heavy users of both public and privately funded health care services, which in turn drives up health care costs, Whyte says.

The Oregon Human Services Department determined that in its state every dollar spent on problem gambling services saves $2 in associated health and criminal justice costs.

“Government has an obligation to protect the health and welfare of their citizens, and the costs problem gamblers inflict not just upon themselves but onto others falls heavily on the rest of us,” Whyte says.

Many of Nevada’s casino companies and slot machine manufacturers — which contribute money to fund crisis help lines and a handful of available treatment programs — were supportive of government funding early in the process.

“Casinos don’t cause problem gambling, but we all have a responsibility to help (compulsive gamblers),” says Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson, whose company gives money to the Hunter’s Problem Gambling Center.

If the state eliminates its funding for problem gambling, “people are going to get hurt,” Adelson predicts. To him, problem gambling is a matter of “public health” akin to drug and alcohol addiction.

Stigma and stereotype prevent many people from seeing the issue as clearly as Adelson does, however.

“They’re thinking of the guy drinking beer all day and gambling away his government check,” Hunter explains. Instead, they should consider “the old couple losing their house in Sun City.”

The state’s slot tax foots the bill for the majority of Hunter’s budget at the Problem Gambling Center, Las Vegas’ only nonprofit outpatient treatment center dedicated to compulsive gambling. A state grant of $132,000 for the nine months ending June 30 enabled Hunter to launch an outreach program for seniors who can’t make it to the clinic for treatment, as well as additional counseling sessions to accommodate more patients.

(The center’s six-week program requires participation in counseling sessions lasting several hours a day, four days a week, in addition to attending Gamblers Anonymous meetings and completing written assignments. There’s a perpetual waiting list for the program, Hunter says.)

The outreach program, which helped 660 seniors last year, won’t survive the budget cuts, Hunter says. The center, which receives donations from businesses and individuals, will stay open but won’t be able to serve as many people as last year, when 212 people completed the outpatient program, he said.

Other states with gambling, including Missouri, Iowa, Massachusetts and Maine, also are proposing cuts to government-funded problem gambling programs to help save ailing budgets. In Washington and Arizona, problem gambling programs that receive a percentage of gambling revenue are facing automatic cuts as the casino business suffers.

Whyte and Hunter argue that Nevada is the state that has the most responsibility to fund such a program.

“It’s a health issue that should be addressed by everybody, even states without gambling, but especially in a state that is so reliant on gaming and, as the world capital of gaming, seen as an industry leader,” Whyte says.

“It would really send the wrong message if the epicenter of gambling is ... not doing anything to help,” Hunter agrees.

Hunter says he and other in-state advocates accept that because of the budget, the funding may need to be reduced. They just don’t want the funding entirely eliminated.

Given the difficulty in securing problem gambling funding in the first place, the fear is that “if they zero out that account,” they will never restore it.