A Tale of Two Taxes: Implementation of Earmarked Taxes for Behavioral Health Services in California and Washington State

• Published in: Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) Vol. 75; no. 5; p. 410
• Main Authors: Purtle, Jonathan, Stadnick, Nicole A, Wynecoop, Megan, Walker, Sarah C, Bruns, Eric J, Aarons, Gregory A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.05.2024
• Subjects: California; Humans; Mental Health Services - economics; Surveys and Questionnaires; Taxes - economics; Washington; Washington; California; Funding; Public policy issues; Reimbursement
• ISSN: 1557-9700
• DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.20230257

The authors sought to characterize perceptions of the impacts, attributes, and support for taxes earmarked for behavioral health services and to compare perceptions of the taxes among professionals in California and Washington, two states differing in earmarked tax designs. Surveys were completed by 155 public agency and community organization professionals involved in tax implementation in California (N=87) and Washington State (N=68) during 2022-2023 (29% response rate). Respondents indicated their perceptions of the taxes' impacts, attributes, and support. Responses were summed as aggregate scores and were also analyzed as individual items. Bivariate analyses were used to compare responses of professionals in California versus Washington State. Earmarked taxes were generally regarded positively. Of the respondents, >80% strongly agreed that the taxes increased funding for services and were helpful, and only 10% strongly agreed that the taxes decreased behavioral health funding from other sources. Substantially more respondents in California than in Washington State strongly agreed that taxes' reporting requirements were complicated (45% vs. 5%, p<0.001) and that the taxes increased unjustified scrutiny of services or systems (33% vs. 2%, p<0.001). However, more respondents in California than in Washington State also strongly agreed that the taxes increased public awareness about behavioral health (56% vs. 15%, p<0.001) and decreased behavioral health stigma (47% vs. 14%, p<0.001). Perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of taxes earmarked for behavioral health services may vary by design features of the tax. Such features include stigma-reduction initiatives and tax spending and reporting requirements.