LA Times Editorial Board Member pens op-ed against deceptive campaign tactics by insurance funded No on 46 campaign

by Brian Leubitz

The members of the LA Times Editorial Board don’t frequently go this far out on the limb against a ballot measure campaign. But check out this op-ed from a member of that board, Jon Healey, calling out the No on 46 campaign:

Even by the political world’s low standards of truthiness, a new commercial being aired by the No on Proposition 46 campaign is jaw-droppingly deceptive.

*** **** ***

Opponents are also trying to persuade voters that the measure would expose their personal health to more prying eyes. But that is, in a word, baloney. Proposition 46 increases the risk of medical data being hacked to the same degree that building a snowman increases the risk of low temperatures. Yet a new television commercial being run by the No on 46 campaign would have you believe that the measure would practically put your medical records up on EBay.

*** **** ***

The implication is that the proposition would either create or pump more personal information into a database that’s less protected than other online repositories. None of that is true. (LA Times / Jon Healey)

I support Prop 46 for a number of reasons. The cap on non-economic damages in MICRA has been devastating for patients across the state. It makes some patients “cheaper” by emphasizing concrete economic damages like lost income. Yes, an insurance company CEO would have brought home more definable money than a child, but does that really mean that only malpractice against the rich and established should give rise to a claim? It means that killing a patient is frequently cheaper than causing expensive long-term health consequences.

Yes, Prop 46 can be a bit confusing, but it has one clear underlining goal: improving patient safety. That is what the CURES requirement would do by decreasing prescription interactions, and that is what the drug testing requirement would do. Maybe you have quibbles about the means to the end goal, but the goal is clear: patient safety.

Could CURES, the prescription database, use some work? Of course, but to blithely state that the government should not maintain any of records? Newsflash: the government already has a ton of personal data. They have your income tax records and social security records. We trust the government with that data, yet somehow hackers are going to focus their efforts on a prescription drug database?

This is California, the home of innovation. We can build a database that makes patients safer and maintains their privacy. Are we really going to shy away from all computerization of our records, or should we only trust the insurance companies with our records?

All of these objections are a way of making the issues fuzzy by the NO campaign. But Prop 46 would bring at least some semblance of hope to the families that have had to deal with the loss of a loved one to medical malpractice that things can get better. That’s why California leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Candace Lightner, the founder of MADD, are supporting Prop 46.

I recommend you see through the typical campaign insanity and vote YES on Prop 46.