Applying red tape to our wounded health care system

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.