[ad_1]
California voters approved Proposition 34. The proposal is an action by the apartment industry group aimed at limiting spending by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which funds several rent control programs, has criticized the measure as unconstitutional retaliation.
The Associated Press called out the effort Wednesday night. California’s Secretary of State said the measure had a 50.8% to 49.2% lead.
As written, Proposition 34 would require a health care provider that spent more than $100 million over a 10-year period on things other than direct patient care and operated an apartment complex with more than 500 “serious health and safety violations.” Applies to
If a health care provider meets that standard, it would be required to spend 98% of its revenue from the federal prescription drug program on direct patient care.
The measure was sponsored by the California Apartment Assn., whose athletic committee said the new rules could apply to multiple organizations and that the initiative’s language He pointed out that no specific organization was named.
In the weeks before the election, many pro-choice ads similarly did not name specific health care providers, emphasizing that Prop. 34 would save taxpayers money while increasing spending on patient care.
But the apartment association also named the AIDS Healthcare Foundation as a target during the campaign, as well as the medical care that has so widely publicized its history of operating housing units with health and safety complaints and spending money on things other than direct patient care. There is no other group. .
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has funded three initiatives in recent years to dramatically expand rent control, including Proposition 33 on this year’s ballot.
All of these measures were defeated, but the real estate industry was forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in opposition.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) makes most of its income from controversial federal drug programs. The program, known as 340B, requires drug companies to sell their drugs at a discount to certain health care providers, who then flip and charge an extra fee for that drug to their health insurance. Bill the company.
According to California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analysis Service, the program is intended to allow health care providers like AHF to serve more low-income patients, but the law requires does not directly limit how the federal drug discount proceeds may be used.
According to a Times investigation published last fall, Prop. 34’s restrictions would allow AHF to fund additional rent control measures and prevent skids plagued by problems such as pest infestations and broken elevators. This could impede his ability to operate the apartments he owns in the Row neighborhood.
AHF Chairman Michael Weinstein said in a statement that AHF will continue to fight for renters.
“The results of Propositions 33 and 34 prove one thing: If billionaires spend more than $170 million lying and confusing voters, their victory is virtually guaranteed. Weinstein said.
What happens next is unknown.
Before the election, AHF unsuccessfully filed a lawsuit to remove Proposition 34 from the vote, arguing that it was unconstitutional because it specifically targeted organizations.
But one legal expert previously told the Times that courts are generally reluctant to strike down legislation before an election, and that there is a “good chance” that a judge would rule the bill unconstitutional if it passes. ” he said.
AHF spokeswoman Jackie Schechner said in an email that the organization will review how the law applies before deciding what legal action to take.
The Yes on 34 campaign declared victory last week before the Associated Press called the race, with voters allowing health care providers to spend money meant for patients on “luxury condos, CEO bonuses and naming rights.” He said he had taken action to close the “loophole” in which the government was exposed. About sports stadiums and political movements. ”
[ad_2]Source link
