Proposition 34
Should California restrict how certain health care providers can spend revenue from prescription drug sales?
Federal law allows health providers that serve lower-income patients to buy prescription drugs at a discount, sell them at retail rates and use the profits to expand services. Proposition 34 would require some providers to spend 98% of that net revenue on direct patient care or risk losing their licenses or tax-exempt status. But the measure’s stipulations mean it would likely only apply to a single organization: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a major force in state and local housing policies. It will also permanently allow the state to negotiate Medi-Cal drug prices.
Yes Argument
This will stop health care providers from spending revenue from the drug discount program on efforts that don’t directly benefit patients. It would keep AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein from funneling money away from patients toward his political pursuits.
No Argument
The initiative is sponsored by landlords to keep the AIDS Healthcare Foundation — the main funder of Proposition 33, the rent control initiative on this ballot — from championing tenant protections. Powerful interest groups shouldn’t be able to use the initiative process to stop organizations from engaging in advocacy work. If passed, it would set a dangerous precedent.
FundraisingCampaign finance data comes from the California Secretary of State’s office or the Federal Election Commission.
Source: California Secretary of State
Key Supporters
In Support
- ALS Association
- California Apartment Association
- California Chronic Care Coalition
- California Senior Alliance
In Opposition
- AIDS Healthcare Foundation
- Consumer Watchdog
- National Organization for Women
- The Coalition for Economic Survival
To learn more about how we use your information, please read our privacy policy.
Signed up.
More Statewide Propositions
Should California issue $10 billion in bonds to help build or upgrade educational facilities?
Should marriage rights for same-sex couples be enshrined in the state constitution?
Should California issue $10 billion in bonds to fund various climate- and environment-related projects?
Should California reduce the vote threshold needed to pass certain local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects?
Should California remove limits on the ability of cities to impose rent control policies capping annual rent increases?
Should California make permanent an existing tax on health insurance companies and restrict how those funds can be used?
Should California roll back past reforms and make it easier to charge people with felony crimes and send them to jail or prison if they repeatedly shoplift, or possess some drugs, including fentanyl and methamphetamine?