By writer to ktla.com
Voting sure on Prop 23 means requiring a health care provider, nurse practitioner or doctor assistant to stay on the website of a dialysis clinic whereas remedy is going down.
The clinics would even have to supply the identical care to sufferers no matter their supply of cost or insurance coverage, report infections and get permission from the state well being division earlier than closing down.
The measure would have an effect on the estimated 80,000 sufferers handled at almost 600 dialysis clinics throughout California every month.
Voting no on Prop 23 means opposing the brand new guidelines on affected person care requirements at kidney dialysis clinics.
Supporters: The Service Workers Worldwide Union-United Healthcare Staff West backs the proposition. The highly effective union positioned a measure on the 2018 poll that equally focused California’s dialysis clinics. It might’ve capped the businesses’ earnings, however voters rejected it.
Proponents have contributed greater than $6.2 million to advertise this yr’s initiative.
Critics: Dialysis corporations spent greater than $111 million to defeat the 2018 proposition, in comparison with SEIU’s $18 million — making it the most costly initiative battle that election.
This time round, opponents have spent at the very least $93 million to kill Prop 23.
The California Medical Affiliation is opposed to the measure, saying it could enhance prices to sufferers and make a health care provider scarcity worse.
Recommend a Correction
— to ktla.com