WHEN READING editorials in the past, I always believed that the authors of the publication based their comments on research and a thorough understanding of the subject. However, after reading the April 26 editorial “Another entitlement,” I realized that this is not always the case.

The Journal editorial criticizes a recently passed Providence ordinance establishing a presumptive cancer benefit and wellness incentive for firefighters. Unfortunately, many statements in the editorial are based on misinformation and assumption, rather than the substance of the ordinance, and the facts.

The necessity of the ordinance is clear. Study after study clearly demonstrates that firefighters experience highly increased rates of cancer diagnoses compared with the general population. The University of Cincinnati conducted an extensive 2006 study which analyzed the results of 32 previous studies of firefighters throughout the United States and Europe. The findings were stark: Rates of testicular cancer were 100 percent higher for firefighters; 50 percent higher for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma; and 28 percent higher for prostate cancer. Other types of cancer also were cited as more common among firefighters, including skin, brain, lung, stomach and colon cancers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer lists many cancer-causing substances that firefighters are regularly exposed to, including benzene, chloroform, formaldehyde, and others.

Such findings have convinced a majority of states to offer occupational disability benefits to firefighters who suffer from cancer. Colorado, Vermont, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, New York, Connecticut, California, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Texas make up a sampling of the many states that have laws recognizing cancer disability as related to firefighting activities. Even the State of Rhode Island, in 1986, adopted a law that grants occupational disability benefits to firefighters in municipalities throughout our state (see RIGL 45-19.1, “Cancer Benefits for Fire Fighters”). Indeed, despite the Journal’s fear that “firefighters in other communities will now be clamoring” for a pension benefit similar to the one Providence just passed, many other Rhode Island cities and towns already provide accidental disability pensions for firefighters with cancer, including Cranston, Johnston, North Providence, Warwick and Woonsocket. (Providence was previously exempted from implementing the state law based on a 1992 Rhode Island Supreme Court decision.)

However, what separates the Providence presumptive cancer ordinance from laws enacted by the state and local municipalities is the incorporation of a clearly defined wellness provision. Providence firefighters who are diagnosed with cancer will not automatically be covered under this ordinance. They must adhere to various requirements, including annual physicals, refraining from use of tobacco products and abuse of alcohol, and participating in an established wellness program administered by the fire department. Firefighters must sign affidavits affirming that they have complied with these requirements in order to be eligible for an occupational disability pension. Providence’s approach also is distinct in that the City Council sought to establish this so-called “benefit” through ordinance, rather than through a collective bargaining agreement, the latter of which has been done in other municipalities. As a result, should any provision of the ordinance prove to be too impractical or too costly, the council will have the ability to make amendments.

Overlooking the substance of the ordinance, The Journal raised unfounded concerns about potential abuse. The editors asked such questions as “Will the city really be able to separate out the cancer risk some firefighters face in second jobs they hold?” and “Will firefighters who could return to the job after being treated for cancer do so, or will they retire permanently?” The answers to these questions are found within the council’s ordinance, which instituted the appropriate safeguards. Regarding the first question, the ordinance disqualifies firefighters who have been or continue to be exposed — through employment, volunteer or recreational activities — to “heat, smoke, radiation, or a known or suspected carcinogen as identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer,” and furthermore, permits the city to rebut a firefighter’s claim based on evidence that the cancer cannot be reasonably be linked to on-the-job exposure. With regard to the second query, the ordinance requires that firefighters provide annual certification of their continued disability, just as they are required to do for any other disability (this requirement is a new mandate the council adopted last year as part of its pension reform package).

Notwithstanding The Journal’s dire predictions about the costs the taxpayers will bear, the presumptive cancer and wellness incentive ordinance has the potential to save money because it encourages a healthy lifestyle for firefighters. The City Council worked collaboratively with the administration of the fire department and the leadership of the firefighters’ union to craft this innovative ordinance, which balances both the interests of the city and its taxpayers, while addressing and recognizing the very real health hazards faced by firefighters in the course of their employment serving the public. Our hope is that as a result of this ordinance, the overall health of the men and women of the fire department will actually improve, potentially decreasing the number of accidental disability pensions filed altogether.

John J. Igliozzi is city councilman for the Seventh Ward of Providence and was co-sponsor of the Presumptive Cancer Benefit and Wellness Incentive Ordinance for Firefighters.