fiercehealthpayer;
October 31, 2014
SANTA MONICA, Calif., Oct. 30, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Consumer advocates and victims of medical negligence released a new Yes on 46 TV ad today featuring a sweating, shaky surgeon who runs out of the operating room and dramatizes the potentially deadly risks of physician substance abuse.The ad, "Need A Drink?" also warns voters about the $100 million that the insurance industry is spending this election cycle to deceive the public about two ballot measures, Propositions 45 and 46, that will hold them accountable for fair prices and patient safety.
View the "Need A Drink?" ad here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlbgDggl5sg
The ad dramatizes how patients are placed in harm's way when they are treated by doctors with substance abuse problems. Up to 2600 doctors in California have an addiction problem at any given time, yet the Medical Board only disciplines an average of 32 doctors a year for abuse.
"Doctors under the influence place us all at risk but the malpractice insurance companies funding the 'No' campaign don't want to be held accountable when their doctors harm someone. Random drug testing under Prop 46 will identify those dangerous doctors and suspend them when they're found to have been impaired on duty," said Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog.
Malpractice and health insurance companies have given $44 of the $58 million that opponents of Proposition 46's patient safety reforms are spending on deceptive TV ads and mailers. Health insurance companies are spending $57 million against Proposition 45's prohibition on excessive health insurance rates.
"The real risk in this election is letting the insurance industry get away with buying it, but voters know that when insurance companies spend $100 million it's not to protect us," said Balber.
Examples of dangerous doctors across California who placed their patients at risk while addicted to drugs or alcohol can be found at:http://www.yeson46.org/dangerous-doctors/
The $100+ million insurance industry campaign has made California's 2014 November ballot one of the most expensive campaigns in the nation.
Prop 46 requires mandatory drug testing for physicians and suspension of impaired physicians' licenses, mandatory checks of an existing prescription drug database before narcotics are prescribed to first time patients, and indexes for inflation the state's 38 year-old cap on damages for medical negligence victims. Insurance companies are spending so much against it because they don't want to be accountable when physicians cause harm.
For more on Proposition 46 visit: www.YesOn46.org
For more on Proposition 45 visit: www.YesOn45.org
Paid for by Consumer Watchdog Campaign – Yes on 46, a coalition of attorneys, consumer advocates, and patients. 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Ste. 112, Santa Monica, CA 90405. Major Funding by Aitken, Aitken & Cohn, LLP.
SOURCE Consumer Watchdog Campaign
Thank You Fierce Health Payer & Yes on 45, Yes on 46.
Prop 46 Ballotpedia:
California Proposition 46, the Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Cap and Drug Testing of Doctors Initiative, was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in California as an initiated state statute. The measure was defeated.
The initiative would have:[1]
- Increased the state's cap on non-economic damages that can be assessed in medical negligence lawsuits to over $1 million from the current cap of $250,000.
- Required drug and alcohol testing of doctors and reporting of positive tests to the California Medical Board.
- Required the California Medical Board to suspend doctors pending investigation of positive tests and take disciplinary action if the doctor was found impaired while on duty.
- Required health care practitioners to report any doctor suspected of drug or alcohol impairment or medical negligence.
- Required health care practitioners to consult the state prescription drug history database before prescribing certain controlled substances.
Supporters of the initiative refered to it as the Troy and Alana Pack Patient Safety Act of 2014, after two children who were killed by a driver under the influence of alcohol and abused prescription drugs.[2]
The measure would have created the first law in the United States to require the random drug testing of physicians.[3]
Supporters of Proposition 46 argued that medical negligence is too common and pain and suffering damage awards are too low. Opponents said the initiative wasn't about protecting patients, but increasing medical lawsuit payouts to trial lawyers.
Election results
 |
| California Proposition 46 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 No | 3,415,996 | 67.15% | ||
| Yes | 1,671,163 | 32.85% | ||
Election results via: California Secretary of State
Proposition 45 Ballotpedia;
California Proposition 45, the Public Notice Required for Insurance Company Rates Initiative, was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated.
The initiative would have:[1]
- Required changes to health insurance rates, or anything else affecting the charges associated with health insurance, to be approved by the California Insurance Commissionerbefore taking effect.
- Provided for public notice, disclosure, and hearing on health insurance rate changes, and subsequent judicial review.
- Required sworn statement by health insurer as to accuracy of information submitted to Insurance Commissioner to justify rate changes.
- Exempted employer large group health plans under any circumstances.
- Prohibited health, auto, and homeowners insurers from determining policy eligibility or rates based on lack of prior coverage or credit history.
Overall, the initiative would have imposed on the health insurance rate regulation system what Proposition 103 (1988)imposed on automobile and homeowners insurance.[2]
Supporters refered to the initiative as the Insurance Rate Public Justification and Accountability Act.[3]
Its sponsors originally hoped to qualify their measure for theNovember 6, 2012, ballot. They submitted over 800,000 signatures on May 18, 2012.[4] On June 28, it became evident that election officials would not have adequate time to scrutinize the signatures for validity in time for placement on the November 6, 2012, ballot. On August 23, 2012, it was announced that the measure had qualified for the 2014 ballot.[5]
Election results
|
| California Proposition 45 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 3,024,584 | 59.81% | ||
| Yes | 2,032,272 | 40.19% | ||
Election results via: California Secretary of State
Kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?
Over $100 Million to keep insurers in the black and drunk and drugged up Docs doing what they do best.
As everybody else gets the Psychiatric Shaft.
No comments:
Post a Comment