Prop. 34 says it is about drug purchasing reform, but is it really about rent control? | Opinion
Proposition 34 is one of those highly complex initiatives placed on the November ballot by special interests because state legislators failed to address it.
This initiative is an effort to reform the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program.
For some 32 years, this program has intended to give a wider range of healthcare providers the ability to purchase pharmaceuticals in the hope of driving down costs. In the eyes of the drug industry, the program has resulted in precisely the opposite, with hospitals and foundations controlling much of the drug market, sometimes prescribing the wrong drugs and frequently increasing costs and profits. Californians historically have been reluctant to reform health care via the ballot box, likely because they grow confused and frustrated. Prop. 34 is a classic example of perhaps the thickest weeds on this ballot.
Prop. 34 appears to be about restricting one of the drug purchasing program’s participants, the Los Angeles-based Aids Healthcare Foundation, from using money to support rent control measures through the initiative process.
An example of this is Proposition 33. Opposed by the California McClatchy Editorial Board, Prop. 33 would strip the state from limiting the scope of local rent control measures, opening the door to a city controlling the rent of a single-family home or an apartment unit voluntarily vacated by a tenant.
With major funding from the California Apartment Association, Prop. 34 appears to be aiming at the Aids Healthcare Foundation to prevent it from bankrolling rent control initiatives ever again. Prop. 34 does not explicitly say so. But of the thousands of 340B program contracts in the state, Prop. 34 only targets large providers who also happen to own and rent a bunch of apartment units on the side that have had health and safety problems. Given some unflattering press about this Aids foundation as a landlord, Prop. 34 appears to restrict 98 percent of the foundation’s expenditures to providing health care. Meaning no money for politics.
Expecting voters to take a scalpel to a complex drug purchasing program is a bridge too far. This issue should be reformed by legislators, not at the ballot box.
Vote No on Prop. 34.
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREWhat are editorials, and who writes them?
Editorials represent the collective opinion of The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board.
They do not reflect the individual opinions of board members or the views of Bee reporters in the news section. Bee reporters do not participate in editorial board deliberations or weigh in on board decisions. The same rules apply to our sister publications, The Modesto Bee, Fresno Bee, Merced Sun-Star and San Luis Obispo Tribune.
In Sacramento, our board includes Bee Executive Editor Colleen McCain Nelson, McClatchy California Opinion Editor Marcos Breton, opinion writers Robin Epley, Tom Philp, LeBron Antonio Hill and op-ed editor Hannah Holzer.
In Fresno and Merced, the board includes Central Valley Executive Editor Don Blount, Senior Editor Christopher Kirkpatrick, Opinion Editor Juan Esparza Loera, and opinion writer Tad Weber.
In Modesto, the board includes Senior Editor Carlos Virgen and in San Luis Obispo, it includes Opinion Editor Stephanie Finucane.
We base our opinions on reporting by our colleagues in the news section, and our own reporting and interviews. Our members attend public meetings, call people and follow-up on story ideas from readers just as news reporters do. Unlike objective reporters, we share our judgments and state clearly what we think should happen based on our knowledge.
Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.
Tell us what you think
You may or may not agree with our perspective. We believe disagreement is healthy and necessary for a functioning democracy. If you would like to share your own views on events important to the Sacramento region, you may write a letter to the editor (150 words or less) using this form, or email an op-ed (650-750 words) to opinion@sacbee.com. Due to a high volume of submissions, we are not able to publish everything we receive.
Support The Sacramento Bee
These conversations are important for our community. Keep the conversation going by supporting The Sacramento Bee. Subscribe here.
This story was originally published October 8, 2024 at 11:38 AM.