For the third time in three elections, California voters are being asked to demand changes to the operations of dialysis clinics that provide life-saving care for 80,000 people with kidney failure.
Proposition 29, which went to the ballot in November, requires a doctor, nurse, or physician’s assistant to be present during treatment at the state’s 600 outpatient dialysis facilities.
According to dialysis clinic companies, most facilities are open at least 16 hours a day, so under this mandate all facilities would need two to three doctors and some clinics would be closed. There is a possibility that
Proponents argue that dialysis patients need more intensive care during their regular visits.
This is the third consecutive general election in which Californians were asked to vote on dialysis regulation. This makes him one of the most expensive ballot issues in state history. In total, he spent more than $90 million this year, according to state records.
All three were supported by unions representing health workers. His two previous measures have failed.
To stay alive, dialysis patients typically receive four hours of therapy at least three times a week. During that time, the machine removes the blood in the patient’s body, filters out toxins, and then returns the blood, effectively temporarily performing the function of the kidneys. but outside the body.
DaVita Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care – two of the largest for-profit dialysis providers in the US – operate about three-quarters of California’s clinics.
Opponents of Prop. 29 say most clinics already provide high-quality care and are regulated by federal and state authorities. They also point out that every patient already has a nephrologist overseeing their care, and nephrologists direct each clinic in California. , say it is part of a tactic to pressure dialysis companies to allow workers to unionize.
“This unnecessary requirement will cost hundreds of millions across the state, force dialysis clinics in California to cut services or close, make it harder for patients to get care, and endanger their lives. will be,” said the No On 29 campaign.
Supporters say it’s a safety issue.
“Most dialysis patients are medically vulnerable and often have other health problems,” said a Yes On 29 statement.
In 2018, union-backed Proposition 8 sought to limit the profits of dialysis clinics and force them to invest more in patient care. Voters rejected the bill, but it was the most costly initiative on the ballot in 2018, generating more than $130 million in campaign spending. He spent more than $111 million from dialysis companies to scrap the initiative, and about $19 million from the unions that supported it.
Two years later, voters rejected Proposition 23. Proposition 23 would impose similar obligations as this year’s bill.
