By The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board
Proposition 44, a citizen’s initiative placed on the Nov. 3 ballot, would require private, nonprofit “federally qualified health centers” and others that serve medically underserved populations to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on services that advance charitable purposes, including patient care.
According to the union backing Proposition 44, some clinics are spending less than half of their funding on patient care to the detriment of their low-income clients. Proponents say Proposition 44 would ensure clinics better fulfill their core mission.
Francisco Silva, the head of the California Primary Care Association, which represents about 200 independently operated community health clinics, disputes the union’s contention.
And an analysis of Proposition 44 by the state Legislative Analyst Office paints a different picture. According to the LAO, private nonprofit safety-net clinics currently report spending an average of 80% of their revenue on healthcare.
Silva contends Proposition 44 would devastate clinics by forcing them to operate at a loss, or cut spending on core services, such as human resources, insurance enrollment assistance, telemedicine, patient transportation and janitorial service. He predicted half of the community health clinics, which are the only medical resource for many low-income people, could be forced to close if Proposition 44 passes.
Two lawsuits — one filed in state court in April and a federal lawsuit filed in September — offer an additional explanation as to why Proposition 44 is on the ballot.
The initiative was filed by Shawna Brown and Sean Fleming, who are affiliated with the Service Employees International Union — United Healthcare Workers West. The union is the major financial backer of the Proposition 44 campaign. It also is the proponent and major contributor to Proposition 40, the Billionaires’ Tax initiative, which is on the November ballot.
In April, CPCA and a community health center operator sued SEIU-UFW in state court alleging the initiative was being used as leverage to pressure clinics into accepting union-organizing demands. Similar allegations, including accusing the union and its leader of racketeering and using ballot initiatives to “shakedown” community health centers, are contained in the federal lawsuit filed in September. The union denies the charges.
Until late June, the union and CPCA were negotiating an agreement for the union to pull Proposition 44 from the ballot. According to the lawsuit, the union agreed to do so if CPCA would accommodate union organizing demands and agree to give the money it planned to spend fighting Proposition 44 to the union’s campaign to pass Proposition 40, the Billionaires’ Tax. CPCA declined to do so.
According to the lawsuit, over the past years, the union has filed dozens of punitive ballot measures in California “targeting hospitals and dialysis providers with the implied threat or directly stated purpose of coercing healthcare providers into acquiescing to their union organizing or bargaining demands.”
Voters may remember that in its ongoing organizing disputes with dialysis clinics, the union placed propositions on the ballot in 2018, 2020 and 2022. Voters overwhelmingly rejected all three.
Voters should overwhelmingly reject this latest ballot box scheme. Vote NO on Proposition 44.