The proposal is flawed. It lacks important measures to protect patients and must be defeated.
BY: GABRIEL LERNER
SEIU-UHW, a powerful union representing healthcare workers in the western United States, has proposed a ballot measure aimed at amending the state statute.
….
The fact that the measure is being promoted by a union lends it an aura of prestige; it would seem that simply because the bill was initiated by the union, it is evidence that its purpose is to look after the people, the community, the public.
That is not the case here.
Regardless of the union’s purpose in proposing the law, its effect is the opposite. It has the potential to harm people, the community, the public. Especially the Latino immigrant community in California.
This law wants the thousands of non-profit health centers to submit to a spending structure, which, it details, will be defined by the state’s Attorney General.
What if it doesn’t? Community clinics that spend more revenue than permitted on expenses not approved by the Attorney General will be fined.
…
The problem with this proposal isn’t that it comes from a union. SEIU-UHW deserves my respect. But in its rush to benefit its members, it harms Latino community clinics, the specific duty these health centers have to the community, and their millions of patients, including the families of its own members.
For many, community clinics are the only healthcare option.
…
For its part, the Clinic Funding Accountability and Transparency Act aims to have the state control the expenses, investments, efforts and ultimately decisions of community clinics in California.
This is not the time. And not in this way.
According to the 2024 California Health Care Almanac, the number of patients receiving care at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) increased from 4.1 million in 2015 to 5.3 million in 2022, a 31% increase. The majority of these patients are Latino and low-income.
They do it without any profit motive, through often voluntary and always dedicated work. Especially now, when people have fewer options, these clinics are insufficient to meet the community’s needs.
They need more, not less, support.
But unfortunately, the proponents paint a strange, contradictory, and irresponsible picture of the reality experienced by community clinics.
…
The problem is that the proposed law doesn’t specifically include the special services our community clinics provide as an “acceptable” expense. It doesn’t define them as part of that 90%.
What are they? For example, translation services, patient navigation, transportation, and community outreach workers, such as community health workers. All of these are essential for hundreds of thousands of low-income patients who need translation services for doctors, pharmacists, nurses, and administrative staff who don’t speak their language. They need explanations of the healthcare process. They need transportation to health centers because they don’t have cars and public transportation can take hours. And they benefit enormously from community health workers.
All these expenditures contribute to the mission of improving equity and access to healthcare. They should be considered as such.
…
CPCA and numerous healthcare organizations, clinics, trade associations, and community organizations have formed the Protect Patients coalition . All participating organizations are listed on this page: https://protectpatientsca.com/our-coalition/
The proposal is flawed, lacks important definitions, and harms community clinics at the most fragile and vulnerable time we have seen in many decades. Therefore, it must be defeated.
In short, an analysis focused not only on the benefit to health workers but also on the survival of clinics, the maintenance of services offered to the Latino community, and the millions who do not have access to other forms of medical care, reveals that the text tends to ignore them.
The proposed law is not what it claims to be. It’s not in our people’s best interest.
To read the full editorial, visit La Opinión’s webpage here.