For the third time in three elections, California voters were asked to change the operation of dialysis clinics, which provide life-saving care to 80,000 people with kidney failure.
Proposition 29 on Tuesday’s ballot would require a physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant to be present during treatment at the state’s 600 outpatient dialysis facilities.
The dialysis clinic companies said that by mandate, each facility would need two to three doctors as most are open for at least 16 hours a day, creating a financial burden that could make some clinics must close.
Advocates insist that dialysis patients need more care during routine visits.
This is the third consecutive general election where Californians are required to vote on dialysis regulations. This is one of the most expensive voting questions in state history. According to state filings, both sides have spent more than $90 million this year.
Not a Modern Healthcare subscriber? Sign up today.
All three are supported by unions representing healthcare workers. The previous two measures failed.
To stay alive, dialysis patients typically undergo four-hour sessions at least three times a week, during which the machine removes blood from the patient’s body, filters out toxins, and then returns the blood. , which basically temporarily performs the functions of the kidney. but outside the body.
DaVita Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care — two of the nation’s largest for-profit dialysis providers — operate about three-quarters of the clinics in California.
Opponents of Proposition 29 say most clinics already provide high-quality care and are regulated by federal and state agencies. They also pointed out that all the patients had a nephrologist – a nephrologist – who oversaw their care, and that nephrologists also direct each clinic in California. They say the initiatives are part of a tactic to pressure dialysis companies to unite workers.
The No On 29 campaign said: “This unnecessary requirement will cost hundreds of millions across the state, forcing dialysis clinics in California to cut services or close, making it difficult for patients to access access to treatment. more treatment – putting their lives at risk,” the No On 29 campaign said.
Advocates say it’s a question of safety.
Download the Modern Healthcare app to stay up to date with industry news.
“Most dialysis patients are medically fragile and often have other health problems,” said a statement from Yes On 29. “Currently, when serious problems occur, most patients on dialysis. clinic only calls 911, which puts patients at risk and contributes to ER overload.”
In 2018, union-backed Proposition 8 sought to limit the profits of dialysis clinics and force them to invest more of their profits in patient care. Voters rejected the measure but not before it became the most expensive initiative in the 2018 vote, generating more than $130 million in campaign spending — more than $111 million from dialysis companies to kill the initiative and about $19 million from the unions supporting it.
Two years later, voters rejected Proposition 23, which would have introduced the same mandates as this year’s bill.
