Editorial: No on Proposition 8
(Nicole Anisgard Parra/Illustrations Director)
By Editorial Board
Nov. 5, 2018 3:12 a.m.
A lot of Californians don’t know the details of dialysis care. That didn’t stop Proposition 8 from giving them the power to determine the future of patient safety.
This board does not endorse the measure. Proposition 8 would require dialysis clinics to provide refunds for any charges that are above 115 percent of the costs of patient care and improvements. Failure to follow this would result in fines for those clinics. These facilities would also not be allowed to refuse service to patients based on their method of payment and would be required to send regular reports of affordability to the state government.
This measure might seem a good way to ensure dialysis care is more accessible to patients. After all, large for-profit dialysis clinics have shown their face as organizations with a track record of mistreating patients. But the reality is Proposition 8 would do more harm than good. And for the many patients who rely on these services, that could quite literally mean life or death.
A revenue cap from the proposition would force dialysis clinics to cut costs in their services to make up for any loss in profit. Lowering the cost of dialysis care would encourage clinics to shortchange patients in their quality of care, be it investing in newer, more effective dialysis units or upkeep of utilities, instead of reducing top executives’ pay – a trend with top-heavy, profit-driven institutions.
Proposition 8 suffers from the same issue many of California’s propositions suffer from: It lacks nuance and attempts to confront an issue that the state legislature ought to be tackling.
The measure’s intent is admirable. But it’s far from the right way to stomp out for-profit clinics’ corruption.
