• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Friday, November 1, 1996

216 ­ NO:

Propositions sacrifice affordability to fund more regulationBy Emma Gordon

California is considered by many to be a land of opportunity. Yet, even here in the best of times there are countless numbers of men, women and children who struggle daily to survive.

Unfortunately, the number of economically challenged individuals could rise substantially if two health-care initiatives on November's ballot, Propositions 214 and 216, are not defeated.

Positioned by proponents as measures that will help reform health care in California, these initiatives, according to unbiased sources, will not provide more or better care to anyone. In fact, they will have a damaging effect on health care.

Why? Because both measures are expected to drive up medical costs and insurance premiums by double-digit percentages making it that much more difficult for many Californians to afford health insurance. Not only that, the measures contain no provisions that lead to improved quality of care.

If passed, health-care workers will be forced to hold costs down as new initiative-related fees are imposed upon them. They might have to eliminate treatment to those who need it most so they can balance the increased administrative costs brought on by those measures, desperately hurting the health clinics that serve women and children.

The sponsors wrote Propositions 214 and 216 so that it would be virtually impossible for health-care businesses to discharge employees, even if their services are no longer needed. Under Proposition 216, health facilities, such as Planned Parenthood, would be financially penalized for becoming more efficient if they no longer need a certain number of hospital beds or if they merge resources and reorganize. All of these fees would be used to fund a new bureaucracy ­ the primary purpose of which will be to administer the collection of the new fees. Then, if there is any money left, they will be used to fund services for the underprivileged. This is typical of a politically motivated tax designed to feed the bureaucracy first and then care for the people second.

What would the statewide costs be? The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's office estimates that both Propositions 214 and 216 would result in unknown additional costs, probably in the range of tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

What would the consumers get? More exhaustive regulations, prohibitions on incentives for doctors to keep patients healthy, requirements that doctors perform redundant examinations on patients and requirements that health-care businesses, like women's clinics, engage in extensive red-tape procedures.

Consumers and health care workers will all face higher costs, forcing them to choose between providing service or denying it if it becomes too costly for them to treat patients. Another likely scenario is higher insurance costs that would result in fewer numbers of individuals with access to affordable, available health care. Expected to be hardest hit if these measures pass are the women and children who rely on health-care facilities and county hospitals.

Californians have enough to worry about without having to wonder if we'll be able to maintain affordable health-insurance programs. While our state has made great strides in making health care more affordable so that more consumers can be covered, we risk turning those gains into losses with these initiatives.

While certain segments of the population, such as low-income, single mothers, stand to be hardest hit if these measures pass, we will all pay a price. We can't afford the medical, social or economic bills that will come if Propositions 214 and 216 are not defeated.