Props. 78 and 79
Propositions 78 (Discounts on Prescription Drugs) and 79 (Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates).
Yes, these two sound a lot alike. But there are specific differences worth noting. Prop. 78, for example, relies on voluntary discounts from drug companies. Prop. 79 makes those discounts a requirement. Those in favor of Prop. 78 say the voluntary discounts work elsewhere so they ought to work here. Opponents say they don’t always work elsewhere and we can't be sure they'll work here. What's more, opponents point out that the drug companies themselves are favoring Prop. 78.
The backing of Prop. 78 by prescription drug companies may be due to the fact that Prop. 79, in addition to requiring drug discounts, will also make it a civil violation to engage in profiteering from the sale of prescription drugs. Prop. 78 does not.
There are also differences between the two propositions with regard to who will qualify. In general, Prop. 78 requires a smaller family income to qualify participants and a 50% higher annual fee (though, to be fair, the actual amount is only about $5 more per family). Prop. 78 also excludes from coverage a larger population based on whether or not they have other coverage and/or are state supported.
However, the most troubling (and least discussed) differences between the two have nothing to do with drug companies or prescription drug benefits. If Prop. 78 is approved by the voters, it will circumvent an important protection provided by the State Constitution. Currently, if a proposition contains a provision that conflicts with another proposition, and both measures are approved by the voters, the conflict is resolved in favor of the proposition with the most number of votes. In other words, even if passed, a proposition will not be adopted in its entirety if another measure, with a conflicting provision, receives more votes. When that happens, the provision from the proposition with the most votes takes precedence. All other parts of both passed measures are then implemented, with the conflicting portion of the measure with the least votes having been replaced by the competing provision from the measure with the most votes.
If Prop. 78 passes, however, it has built into it that all its provisions will go into effect and none of the provisions of a competing measure would take effect, provided Prop. 78 receives the higher number of "yes" votes. In other words, it will bypass a portion of our State's Constitution and will require the proposition to be adopted in its entirety--and Proposition 79 to be ignored in its entirety--even if there are no directly conflicting provisions, and even if Proposition 79 passes.
If you read even further in the text of the measure, you'll also find this: "If this measure is approved by voters but superceded by law by any other conflicting ballot measure approved by the voters at the same election, and the conflicting ballot measure is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force of law." What this appears to mean, is that if Prop. 79 were to pass with more votes than Prop. 78 and be implemented, but at some later date (no limits specified) Prop. 79 were to be found "invalid" then Prop. 78 would come out of the shadows and take effect as law, automatically, with no opportunity for discussion or re-assessment of the situation.
Prop. 78 is not just about a prescription drug plan backed by prescription drug companies; it's a law that means to sneak itself into implementation through the back door, should it be turned away at the front.
As for Prop. 79, my biggest concerns are the unknown fiscal costs. While health care and prescription drug benefits are at the top of my list of important causes, I'm not convinced that it's a working plan that California will really benefit from.
What I can tell you is that unlike Proposition 78, Prop. 79 does not attempt to bypass the State Constitution to protect itself, nor does it self-implement, automatically, if a competing measure receives more votes but is later found to be invalid. In other words, Prop. 79 is either coming through the front door, or it's staying home.
Prop. 78, on the other hand, won't go away even if it receives fewer votes than Prop. 79; rather, it will hang out in the alley until its proponents find a way to categorize Prop. 79 as invalid--then it will slide on in, unnoticed. And frankly, that makes me a little nervous.
--Laurie
Yes, these two sound a lot alike. But there are specific differences worth noting. Prop. 78, for example, relies on voluntary discounts from drug companies. Prop. 79 makes those discounts a requirement. Those in favor of Prop. 78 say the voluntary discounts work elsewhere so they ought to work here. Opponents say they don’t always work elsewhere and we can't be sure they'll work here. What's more, opponents point out that the drug companies themselves are favoring Prop. 78.
The backing of Prop. 78 by prescription drug companies may be due to the fact that Prop. 79, in addition to requiring drug discounts, will also make it a civil violation to engage in profiteering from the sale of prescription drugs. Prop. 78 does not.
There are also differences between the two propositions with regard to who will qualify. In general, Prop. 78 requires a smaller family income to qualify participants and a 50% higher annual fee (though, to be fair, the actual amount is only about $5 more per family). Prop. 78 also excludes from coverage a larger population based on whether or not they have other coverage and/or are state supported.
However, the most troubling (and least discussed) differences between the two have nothing to do with drug companies or prescription drug benefits. If Prop. 78 is approved by the voters, it will circumvent an important protection provided by the State Constitution. Currently, if a proposition contains a provision that conflicts with another proposition, and both measures are approved by the voters, the conflict is resolved in favor of the proposition with the most number of votes. In other words, even if passed, a proposition will not be adopted in its entirety if another measure, with a conflicting provision, receives more votes. When that happens, the provision from the proposition with the most votes takes precedence. All other parts of both passed measures are then implemented, with the conflicting portion of the measure with the least votes having been replaced by the competing provision from the measure with the most votes.
If Prop. 78 passes, however, it has built into it that all its provisions will go into effect and none of the provisions of a competing measure would take effect, provided Prop. 78 receives the higher number of "yes" votes. In other words, it will bypass a portion of our State's Constitution and will require the proposition to be adopted in its entirety--and Proposition 79 to be ignored in its entirety--even if there are no directly conflicting provisions, and even if Proposition 79 passes.
If you read even further in the text of the measure, you'll also find this: "If this measure is approved by voters but superceded by law by any other conflicting ballot measure approved by the voters at the same election, and the conflicting ballot measure is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force of law." What this appears to mean, is that if Prop. 79 were to pass with more votes than Prop. 78 and be implemented, but at some later date (no limits specified) Prop. 79 were to be found "invalid" then Prop. 78 would come out of the shadows and take effect as law, automatically, with no opportunity for discussion or re-assessment of the situation.
Prop. 78 is not just about a prescription drug plan backed by prescription drug companies; it's a law that means to sneak itself into implementation through the back door, should it be turned away at the front.
As for Prop. 79, my biggest concerns are the unknown fiscal costs. While health care and prescription drug benefits are at the top of my list of important causes, I'm not convinced that it's a working plan that California will really benefit from.
What I can tell you is that unlike Proposition 78, Prop. 79 does not attempt to bypass the State Constitution to protect itself, nor does it self-implement, automatically, if a competing measure receives more votes but is later found to be invalid. In other words, Prop. 79 is either coming through the front door, or it's staying home.
Prop. 78, on the other hand, won't go away even if it receives fewer votes than Prop. 79; rather, it will hang out in the alley until its proponents find a way to categorize Prop. 79 as invalid--then it will slide on in, unnoticed. And frankly, that makes me a little nervous.
--Laurie
posted by LA Fosner at 4:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home