When Californians go to the polls later this year, they will face controversial health care choices.
Voters will weigh whether to overturn a state law banning flavored tobacco products and may consider raising the cap on malpractice compensation. They could also vote on proposals that would effectively legalize psychedelic mushrooms and regulate dialysis clinics.
Two pandemic-related measures could also qualify for the Nov. 8 election: One would tax California’s wealthiest residents to create an agency to detect disease outbreaks and strengthen the state’s public health system. Another would limit the ability of government officials to close schools and businesses during a public health emergency.
Even though the election is about 10 months away, money is already pouring in from deep-pocketed interests eager to defeat measures that will eat into their profits.
Big Tobacco has invested $21 million to overturn a ban on flavored products, while the health care industry has poured $43 million into opposing proposals to raise California’s malpractice compensation cap, according to campaign finance records filed with the California Secretary of State’s office. December 27, 2019 to December 30, 2021.
“On a monetary and human level, the stakes couldn’t be higher,” said Thad Kousser, chair of the political science department at the University of California, San Diego. “Healthcare is a huge industry that affects people in their most vulnerable moments.”
Cuther, an expert on California’s advocacy process, noted that big spending doesn’t guarantee a win.He pointed out that Mercury Insurance and its chairman year 2010 and 2012 Raising car insurance premiums – a ballot measure rejected by voters despite huge industry spending.
According to the secretary of state’s office, the flavored tobacco measure is the only measure officially eligible for general election voting, but supporters of the malpractice proposal have gathered enough signatures to qualify.
The healthcare industry will not wait for the malpractice initiative to go into effect. The $43 million donated by the California Medical Association, the California Hospital Association and their allies to defeat it accounted for nearly three-quarters of the amount they spent successfully opposing the 2014 malpractice ballot measure, according to a KHN analysis of campaign finance records.
That’s also nearly four times what backers of the 2014 initiative, which will also increase the cap, raised throughout the campaign. This time around, the author of the malpractice ballot measure said he plans to invest up to $40 million of his own in combating opposition from the healthcare industry.
“I’m not going to hold back,” trial attorney Nick Rowley told KHN. “We have a grassroots effort. They don’t know what’s going to happen.”
This measure Raise California’s $250,000 cap on malpractice compensation to about $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation annually. It would also change state law to allow judges or juries to exceed caps when a patient is permanently damaged, disfigured or disabled or a loved one dies — categories that critics say essentially include all patients and subject-provider lawsuits flooding.
California lawmakers set the $250,000 cap in 1975 after doctors and hospitals complained that malpractice lawsuits drove up costs and could drive providers out of the state.
More than four decades later, doctors and other providers have made similar arguments.
“If this works out, our biggest fear is having to tap into resources that are already scarce,” said Leslie Abasta-Cummings, CEO of Livingston Community Health and board chair of the Central Valley Health Network, which represents more than 100 health Clinic. She warned that patients may be “without access to health care in certain areas.”
Rowley, a Montana resident who practices law nationwide, dismissed the argument, noting that a growing number of states no longer have caps or have raised them. Physicians continue to practice in those states, and California malpractice victims have limited legal options, he said.
Healthcare providers are also stepping up their defense of a 2020 state law that bans the sale of flavored tobacco products popular with young people who smoke or vape.
when lawmakers approve ban, they argue that the tobacco industry should not be allowed to market mint-, candy- and fruit-flavored e-cigarettes to children. Tobacco companies countered that the law removed legal products from the market that were supposed to allow adults — and that it discriminated against black smokers who preferred menthol cigarettes.
California Equity Coalition – Funded largely by tobacco giants RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA and their affiliate US Smokeless Tobacco Co. – are trying to overturn the law by referendum.The coalition demonstrated its political power early on, raising the $21 million Within three months of Governor Gavin Newsom’s August 2020 signing of the bill.
Health care groups have united against the ballot measure, but are far behind, with just $2.7 million in donations — nearly 60 percent of which came from former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Several other health proposals could be on the ballot:
- Support will own and plant psychedelic mushrooms Required signatures must be collected by March 15th. Mushrooms containing psilocybin, known as “magic mushrooms,” are Schedule I controlled substances under federal law. A growing number of states and cities — including Oakland, Santa Cruz and Arcata, California — have legalized mushrooms.
- Health workers union makes third attempt to return Standardize dialysis clinics Through a voting process, calls for greater transparency in clinic ownership and stricter staffing requirements. If the past is any indication, if the SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West union gets the required signatures by April 27, the dialysis industry will once again spend huge sums to thwart the initiative.Industry beats two previous dialysis ballot measures, floods the air with ads and spends $111 million 2018 $105 million in 2020.
- Frustrated by school and business closures during the pandemic, backers of a proposed initiative hope Limit business restrictions In public health and other emergencies, to 30 days, unless state and local lawmakers extend every 30 days. The proposal would require large retailers to be considered small businesses, noting that many small businesses were forced to close early in the pandemic while large retailers remained open. The proposal also describes schools as an essential service that should remain open “as much as possible”. Backers have until May 3 to collect signatures.
- Proposals to strengthen California public health system, which has collapsed during the covid-19 pandemic, proponents say, will raise the personal income tax rate by another three-quarters of a percentage point if income exceeds $5 million.Taxes will last for 10 years and generate depending on $1.5 billion annually. Half of the proceeds will fund an agency to detect and prevent new disease outbreaks, 25% will go towards safety upgrades in schools, and 25% will help rebuild local public health workforces and infrastructure. Backers have until May 23 to collect signatures.
Angela Hart of California Healthline contributed to this report.
This story is made by KHN, publish California Healthline, the editorial independent service of California Healthcare Foundation.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that provides in-depth news coverage on health issues.Along with policy analysis and polling, KHN is one of the top three operating programs in the U.S. KFC (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is a donating non-profit organization that provides information on health issues to the state.
Photo: Jenny on the Moon, Getty Images
