MEDICINE: Pending ballot measure Proposition 46 challenges the way healthcare is conducted in California.
By Matthew Saenz, Staff Writer
Healthcare recently became a hot topic within various organized groups—from political parties to medical associations. Issues regarding healthcare came to a head in California with Proposition 46, which will be voted on on November 4, 2014. Over the past few months, this potential law sparked heated debates amongst supporters and retractors.
Proposition 46, labelled the “Troy and Alana Pack Patient Safety Act of 2014” by its supporters, aims to overturn the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), a 1975 bill signed by Governor Jerry Brown that caps the awarding of damages relating to medical malpractice at $250,000. Proposition 46 instead seeks to increase the cap to $1.1 million. In addition, this proposition, if successful, will be the first law in United States history to allow healthcare practitioners to report physicians on possible medical negligence and drug and alcohol impairment, subjecting physicians to random drug tests.
Those in support of Proposition 46 point to statistics published on Yeson46.org that estimate 440,000 lives lost to “preventable medical errors by hospitals and doctors” every year and the ever-increasing number of people suffering from substance abuse. “Doctors are the biggest suppliers for chronic prescription drug abusers,” according to the official Yes on 46 website. Influential politicians such as California Senator Barbara Boxer and U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi as well as organizations such as the Mexican American Bar Association are in support of this bill. “This time it is being used in the right way, and we’re going to bypass the governor, and we’re going to bypass the Democrats and Republicans in the legislature, and we are taking our message straight to the heart and soul of the people,” Senator Boxer explained in an official press release.
The opposition believes that the proposition will encroach on the privacy of patients and ultimately cost consumers in terms of finances and accessibility to their physicians. According to Noon46.com, this bill would only serve as a boon for trial lawyers to sue astronomical amounts for frivolous lawsuits, and “if they get their way, medical lawsuits and jury awards will skyrocket. Someone will have to pay those costs. And that someone…is you.”
Physicians, teachers, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Planned Parenthood and some of California’s most powerful unions all denounce Proposition 46. Dr. Mario Martinez M.D., a third-year medical student at University of California, San Francisco, in an outside interview conducted by thinkingblonde.com, explained that this bill, if passed, would force patients to lose their medical care. “More lawsuits and higher payouts would lead to higher medical malpractice premiums. That would make it more expensive to provide care to our patients. For many clinics, especially those that treat low-income Californians, patients will lose access to care,” Martinez explained. Dr. Melanie Crane M.D., a member of the Board of Directors at the Riverside County Medical Association (RCMA), also shared these sentiments. “If this [Proposition 46] gets passed, it will become too risky for physicians to practice medicine in California. These random drug tests attack our privacy. This bill would lower physician accessibility by increasing the cost of medical care,” Crane said. Other organizations such as Planned Parenthood are firmly against Proposition 46 as well, as their expense of simply staying in business would be too great to overcome, and many would be forced to close.
Reception towards this bill amongst the general population is mixed. According to Ballotpedia.org, donations in support of Proposition 46 reached upwards of $8 million, while donations against it reached upwards of $57 million. However, a limited poll conducted by Ballotpedia.org revealed more support (46%) than dissent (33.5%) for Proposition 46.
What does this mean for possible voters? It means a potential change in the way their healthcare is handled. Regardless of the outcome, voters will have to consider the benefits and consequences of such radical changes.