Editorials

Editorial: No to Proposition 8!

La Opinion September 14, 2018

Editorial: No to Proposition 8!

Dialysis treatment is vital to the survival of the patient who has extremely serious kidney disease. It requires three visits a week to a specialized clinic. Each one of up to almost four hours long, where the patient’s blood is cleaned because the kidney can no longer do it.

The correct priority is today’s patient. It is to guarantee that you will continue to have the current access to your clinic where you are now attended. The last thing you need is uncertainty about your treatment. For this reason, we recommend voting “no” on Proposition 8.

The initiative is one of 11 that are on the ballot for voters to decide in the election on November 6.

Proposition 8 seeks to make major changes to modify the regulation of the approximately 588 dialysis clinics in California. The purpose is to promote better patient care with a greater number of certain personnel who provide direct care. The way to do this is to change the operation model of the clinics, establishing which services and expenses are reimbursable. Either by private insurers or Medicare and Medi-Cal, which are the main burden of the medical service bill.

The main promoter of the initiative is the SEIU-UHW West health sector union, which is campaigning to organize a portion of the people who work in the clinics, which mainly belong to two companies. Proposition 8 is a battle of a labor dispute where patients are currency.

The initiative alters the model of the clinics, promoting the hiring of those who would potentially be members of the union. These care directly for patients, although they ignore other categories of employees no less important. With this criterion you want to determine what is reimbursable and what is not.

Thus, it really puts itself in jeopardy, or at least creates real uncertainty, in a structure on which more than 80,000 patients a month depend. It is reasonable to believe that some clinics will close their doors if they cease to be profitable.

What does not exist is reason to believe, as the proponents say, that the measure will reduce health expenses, unless services are reduced. Insurers are much less likely to lower other clients’ premiums.

The initiative promises but does not guarantee that there will be an improvement in the care or access to the clinics of what dialysis patients have today. The real thing is that the current system will change and with it the routine of a fundamental treatment for the survival of people. The possibility of closing a single clinic is unacceptable.

Say NO to Proposition 8!