Proposition 52 is a rare initiative for which there should be little debate or dissent. The measure would extend an existing fee on hospitals to provide health care to poor people, guarantee that the federal government will match the state’s share, and inhibit the Legislature from diverting the money to other programs.
The Sacramento Bee’s editorial board generally opposes using ballot measures to tie legislators’ hands on fiscal matters. But Proposition 52 is an exception, and the vast majority of lawmakers agree.
The California Republican and Democratic parties support the initiative, as do most of organized labor, business groups and the hospital and health care industry, which is funding the Yes-on-52 campaign.
Opponents include the Service Employees International Union-United Health Care Workers West, which advocates limiting hospital executive pay. But executive perks are a subject for another day and some other initiative. Proposition 52, hardly the stuff of high drama, would help stabilize hospital funding for poor people, and ensure that Uncle Sam will continue to help California pay for their care.
Never miss a local story.
As a result of an agreement by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature in 2009, hospitals impose the Hospital Quality Assurance Fee on themselves. The fee netted $3.7 billion last year. With the feds’ match of $4.4 billion, California’s 450 private, public and rural hospitals received $8.1 billion to care for poor people covered through the state Medi-Cal program, the Legislative Analyst’s Office says. That’s a significant part of the $95 billion state and federal cost of providing health care for roughly 13.3 million Californians who depend on the Medi-Cal program.
Public hospitals would be among the biggest beneficiaries – they received a net benefit of $235 million last year – as would rural hospitals. Hospitals use the money to pay for children’s health care services, which otherwise would come from the state general fund.
The Legislature has extended the 2009 arrangement four times. If voters approve Proposition 52, there would be no need for further legislative action. Nor would lawmakers be tempted to seize money that is earmarked for the care of poor people.
In an election dominated by Donald Trump, the fight for control of Congress, gun control and marijuana legalization, Proposition 52 is an outlier. It doesn’t generate fierce debate. But Proposition 52 does make fiscal sense, and it is worthy of voters’ support.