Dialysis Clinic Requirements

According to Ballotpedia:

Prop 23 would require chronic dialysis clinics to:

• have a minimum of one licensed physician present at the clinic while patients are being treated, with an exception for when there is a bona fide shortage of physicians;
• report data on dialysis-related infections to the state health department and National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN);
• require the principal officer of the clinic to certify under penalty of perjury that he or she is satisfied, after review, that the submitted report is accurate and complete; and
• provide a written notice to the state health department and obtain consent from the state health department before closing a chronic dialysis clinic.

This follows Prop 8 from November 2018, another labor dispute that SEIU-UHW West took to the ballot box. Californians rejected that measure, which would have capped dialysis companies’ revenue to 115 percent of some costs---mostly labor---by 20 points. Rather than negotiate through the legislature, the labor group spent millions forcing California voters to decide yet another dialysis measure, with patients again caught in the middle.

Similarly to their assessment of 2018 Prop 8, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office projects that Prop 23 would raise costs to health insurers, including state and local governments paying tens of millions per year, and may result in the closure of some clinics. By the same logic, it could reduce the growth of new clinics, which will be needed as California’s population ages.

Prop 23 also exacerbates existing problems in our healthcare system by worsening our growing physician shortage and moving away from alternative medical staffing that makes treatment more affordable and accessible. Occupational licensing requirements like these are incompatible with goals for universal healthcare, and if anything they should be slimmed down, as many states have done to meet needs during the pandemic.

Between 2018 Prop 8 and 2020 Prop 23, over $230 million will have been spent educating voters about kidney treatment esoterica. That’s money that would otherwise be improving the quality and/or affordability of treatment for dialysis patients. It’s an abuse of democracy for regulatory capture that voters must, again, reject.