Proposition 44 would require certain private nonprofit community clinics serving medically underserved patients to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on healthcare services. The California attorney general would decide which expenses qualify. Clinics that fall short would pay the state the difference but could get that money back if they meet the requirement within five years. The state could grant temporary waivers in some cases.
Yes Argument
Community clinics receive public money to care for people who often have few other options. Proposition 44 would require more clinic revenue to go toward healthcare services rather than administration and other overhead. The 90% requirement could include medical and dental care, mental health services, equipment, transportation and interpretation. Clinics that fall short could recover their penalties once they meet the standard.
No Argument
Community clinics already operate under state and federal rules and reporting requirements. A fixed 90% spending requirement could leave less flexibility to pay for management, technology, facilities and other costs needed to keep clinics running. Clinics that cannot meet the requirement would face penalties and, in some cases, could close. That could reduce access to care for low-income and uninsured patients.
Key Supporters
In Support
- Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW)
In Opposition
- California Academy of Family Physicians
- California Medical Association
- California Primary Care Association
- California School Nurses Organization
- Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
More Statewide Propositions
Should California issue $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing, homebuying opportunities and veterans and homelessness programs?
Should state and local governments have the option to provide public funding for election campaigns?
Should successor elections be eliminated from recall elections of state officials?
Should California issue $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a “middle-class” homebuyer downpayment assistance program?
Should California issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research?
Should California tax the wealth of billionaires to fund health care services?
Should California require ongoing audits of programs funded by specific taxes, and make those tax revenues subject to the state’s spending limit?
Should the state prohibit new taxes on financial assets like stocks and investment accounts and prohibit most retroactive taxes?
Should local tax measures placed on the ballot by voter signature face a higher threshold if the tax will be used for a specific purpose?
Should California speed up its environmental review process for certain projects?