- GPCA Standing General Assembly Voting - Ranked Choice Vote Details

Home	Vote	Results	History	Contacts	Admin
	GPCA Standing General Assembly Voting

Login

Ranked Choice Vote Details

Ranked Choice Vote ID	58
Ranked Choice Vote	GPCA position on Prop 46: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors Medical Negligence Lawsuits Initiative Statute
Type	Open Ballot
Number of Seats	1
Ranked Choice Vote Administrator	Mike Feinstein
Phase	Closed
Discussion	08/18/2014 - 09/28/2014
Voting	09/29/2014 - 10/05/2014
Result	Results
Presens Quorum	12 0.5001
Candidates	GPCA endorses Proposition 46 GPCA opposes Proposition 46 GPCA takes no position on Proposition 46

Background

This is the ranked choice vote for the GPCA to take a position on PProposition 46: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits, Initiative Statute, which has been placed via the initiative process on the November 2014 general election ballot.

The choices are to rank 'endorse', 'oppose', 'no position' and/or 'abstain.' Delegates can rank as many or few of these options in their order of preference.

An 'endorse' vote would mean the GPCA would endorse Proposition 46. An 'oppose' vote means the GPCA would oppose Proposition 46. A 'no position' vote means the GPCA would not take a position on Proposition 46. An 'abstain' vote means the voter is not expressing a preference, but is voting to help achieve quorum. Any of these position that receives 2/3 after all preferences are transferred is the position of the party. If neither 'endorse' nor 'opposes' receive 2/3, the GPCA's position will be 'no position'.

Below is information from the State of California Voter Guide, as well as the recommendation of the Green Party of Alameda County, that will be in their November 2014 primary election voter guide.

-------

Full text of Proposition 46: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2014/general/pdf/text-of-proposed-laws1.pdf#prop46

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/46/title-summary.htm

Ballot Title and Summary: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Initiative Statute. http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/46/title-summary.htm

Official summary: "Requires drug and alcohol testing of doctors and reporting of positive test to the California Medical Board. Requires Board to suspend doctor pending investigation of positive test and take disciplinary action if doctor was impaired while on duty. Requires doctors to report any other doctor suspected of drug or alcohol impairment or medical negligence. Requires health care practitioners to consult state prescription drug history database before prescribing certain controlled substances. Increases $250,000 cap on pain and suffering damages in medical negligence lawsuits to account for inflation."

Fiscal impact statement: "Increased state and local government health care costs from raising the cap on medical malpractice damages, likely ranging from the tens of millions of dollars to several hundred million dollars annually."

"Uncertain, but potentially significant, state and local government savings from new requirements on health care providers, such as provisions related to prescription drug monitoring and alcohol and drug testing of physicians. These savings would offset to some extent the health care costs noted above." (Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's Legislative Analyst and its Director of Finance.)

Although the following information was not available at the time of this posting, it will be available during the SGA's six week discussion period and will be sent to all SGA members

Legislative Analysis: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/46/analysis.htm
Argument in Favor: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/46/arguments-rebuttals.htm
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/46/arguments-rebuttals.htm
Argument Against: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/46/arguments-rebuttals.htm
Rebuttal to Argument Against: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/46/arguments-rebuttals.htm

-------

Recommendation of the Green Party of Alameda County: Proposition 46 - NO

Drug Testing of Doctors and Medical Negligence Lawsuits

Trial lawyers want to raise the current state $250,000 limit (instituted in 1975) on “pain and suffering” damages that can be assessed in medical negligence lawsuits to $1.1 million, to keep up with inflation.

Prop 46 adds two arguably peripheral measures, in theory to improve the quality of health care: a) drug and alcohol testing of doctors and reporting of positive tests to the California Medical Board, and b) requiring health care practitioners to consult a state prescription drug history database before prescribing certain controlled substances.

Supporters include Consumer Attorneys of California, Consumer Watchdog, and Senator Boxer. Opponents include physician groups, led by the California Medical Association, insurers, hospitals, allied health professionals, most labor unions, the ACLU, the Chamber of Commerce, the NAACP, and the CA School Boards Assoc. CA Dems and California Nurses' Association are staying neutral.

Greens could argue either side of the payment issue. Our broken health care system does need to address patient safety and compensate those who have been harmed. But will payouts, and the resulting rise in malpractice insurance, drive medical care costs even further out of reach? The Congressional Budget Office says it will not significantly raise costs, but a coalition of medical clinics say it will.

The drug testing section is also problematic. Health practitioners may already be subject to either random drug testing or testing for cause if suspected of drug diversion or impaired practice. The tests used may not be sensitive or specific enough to be useful.

However, the third section to this omnibus bill is the most worrisome, and it isn’t even reflected in the proposition's title. It would REQUIRE health care practitioners to consult a state-level proprietary-software prescription drug history database before prescribing certain controlled substances (DEA Schedule II and III). The database already exists, but it is not required to be used (currently only 8% of MD's do it).

The intent of this section is to keep people from getting quantities of the same or similar drugs (painkillers, diet aids, psychological aids, steroids) from doctors who are not aware the person has already obtained such drugs elsewhere. Even if a voter applauds this (debatable) goal, the implementation is unworkable and even frightening. For example,
.. this requirement could make it impossible to get honestly-needed drugs when the database is down. Since only 8% of MD's voluntarily do it now, that means a more than ten times traffic increase on this web-based system, which is likely to cause crashes.
.. what is considered a controlled substance is open to political manipulation over time. This law would thus take personal control even further away from individuals.
.. your entire prescription drug history will be in this web-based database for all the world to see, if it gets hacked. People who might be looking for something to use against you (reporters, custody lawyers, job background checkers, Big Brother) could find a way to get access. There was already a lawsuit about privacy concerns around this database, and the patient apparently lost.

This bill should have been three separate propositions. Again, what we need is Improved Medicare for All (Single Payer) Now. Vote NO.

Candidate Information

GPCA endorses Proposition 46

GPCA opposes Proposition 46

GPCA takes no position on Proposition 46

Questions about this system?
Contact the Voting Admin.

The Voting is free software, licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL).
You can download the 2006 gp-us version here or the 2012 gpca sga version here.

To independently verify a Ranked Choice Vote, or for information about how that works, go to Jonathan Lundell's Voting Page and upload the ballot file from the ranked choice vote result page. JL's ranked choice module is licensed under an alternate free software license.