Endorsement: No on Prop 23. It would raise costs and not improve kidney patients’ care
LA TimesFor the second time in two years, California voters will be asked to play the role of healthcare regulators and set rules for how dialysis clinics operate in this state. Proposition 23 — like Proposition 8 in 2018 — would raise costs without delivering a meaningful improvement in the quality of care. The measure would require clinics to keep a medical doctor on duty whenever patients are treated; report the number of infections quarterly to state health officials; not discriminate against patients on Medicare or Medicaid and obtain state approval before closing or substantial reducing services. Supporters of Proposition 23 argue that the new mandates are necessary to safeguard patients against profiteering and corner-cutting by the two multibillion-dollar corporations that operate most of the country’s dialysis clinics, DaVita and Fresenius. Opponents argue that clinics would trim their hours and open fewer new locations as a result, which would make it harder for patients to get treated.
History of this topic
California voters reject Proposition 29’s mandates for kidney dialysis clinics
LA Times
Your guide to Prop. 29 on California kidney dialysis centers
LA Times
As Prop. 29 vote looms, dialysis patients brace for change
LA Times
Column: Obscenely rich dialysis firms are spending millions to defeat Proposition 29’s tighter regulations
LA Times
Column: Prop. 29 would stiffen requirements for California dialysis clinics. It’s also political extortion
LA Times
Endorsement: On the ballot for a third time, Prop. 29 is a tired retread that could hurt dialysis patients
LA Times
Prop. 23, which would have imposed new regulations on dialysis industry, fails
LA Times
Prop. 23: What you need to know about the dialysis measure
LA Times
Endorsement: Proposition 8 isn’t about dialysis care, it’s about punishing non-unionized clinics. Vote no
LA TimesDiscover Related
