This is a 2-minute summary of what’s on the ballot. Click here to listen to them all.
California’s Proposition 23 is the latest round in an ongoing fight between labor unions and two major dialysis corporations. You may recall 2018’s Proposition 8, which would have required those companies to offer refunds for overcharging many of their patients. It failed after opponents spent more than $111 million to fight it.
Proposition 23 pits the same players against each other in another epic ballot battle and it would do four things:
- First, it would require outpatient dialysis clinics to have at least one licensed physician on-site during all patient treatment.
- Second, clinics would have to provide oversight agencies with quarterly reports on dialysis-related infections.
- Third, it would bar discrimination against patients based on how their bill is paid.
- Fourth, it would require state approval before any clinic closure.
The labor organizations sponsoring Proposition 23 are the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, also known as the SEIU-UHW. The opposition is funded by DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care. They insist that Proposition 23’s mandates would jeopardize access to care for thousands of dialysis patients and exacerbate California’s physician shortage.
And that’s it in a nutshell. If you agree that dialysis clinics should be subject to additional regulation, then vote yes on Proposition 23. If you want to leave them alone, vote no.
