Two seats get big attention

by Brian Leubitz

The media thrives on big statements, but shades of gray are everywhere. And that is true for the Senate elections here in California. So, with that, here is a “big statement” quote from former FPPC chair (and SoS candidate) Dan Schnur:

“If Republicans can win both of those seats, it will be seen as their first step back toward political relevance in California,” said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. “But if Democrats get the supermajority back, it’s difficult to see California becoming a two-party state again any time in the near future.” (LA Times)

To be clear, these two races are very worthy of attention. They are getting very expensive, as both sides look to grab an advantage. And, in terms of the supermajority, this is where the ballgame will be decided. But, is the supermajority really that important? Are there a lot of supermajority measures that will get taken up next year? It seems unlikely, and with the budget only requiring a majority, taxes are the only instance where you would really need it.

And if the GOP can pull off a win in one or two of these districts, does that really mean they are on the road back? Yes a lot of money will be spent in those two districts, but there is little to draw casual voters to these elections. The Presidency isn’t up this year, and the governor’s race is a snoozer. Will a GOP win say anything about the future, or will it say more about the electorate of the past?

If the Republicans aren’t able to win at least one, it would certainly present a dark picture for the future. Their two candidates, Andy Vidak and Janet Nguyen, are fairly strong in favorable electoral conditions. If they can’t win now, when will they win? This is where I tend to agree with the drastic part of Schur’s quote. The GOP, and more importantly their financial backers, will have to look at massive change if they can’t win these two seats this November.

(A nice follow-up to my article about this subject recently from our friends at the Consumer Federation.   – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

by Richard Holober, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California

Health care industry-funded ads sounding the Prop 46 privacy alarm flunk the straight face test.

The ads allege Prop 46 sets up a secret medical record database that will be vulnerable to hacking. Not only is this absolutely false, it’s galling when you consider that the hospitals and insurance companies funding the ads have exposed millions of their own patient records through their negligence.

Prop 46 creates no new patient database. It does put to better use a database that has been in place for 17 years. The CURES database (Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System) has never been breached. It is a database of prescriptions for Schedule II, III and IV narcotics. It is encrypted and stored on a server behind the Department of Justice’s firewall. Access is tightly restricted to licensed prescribers, pharmacists and law enforcement.

Overprescribing of prescription narcotics is a national epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control cited 475,000 emergency room visits and 36,000 deaths from prescription narcotic overdoses in a recent year, at a price tag of $72 billion in avoidable health care expenditures.

A big contributor to this epidemic is doctor shopping by drug abusers who go from one physician to the next, getting multiple prescriptions for the same narcotic. CURES is a powerful tool to halt doctor shopping.

But the CURES database is only effective if physicians check it before filling a prescription.

Prop 46 is named the Troy and Alana Pack Patient Safety Act in memory of two children who were killed on the sidewalk of their Danville neighborhood by a drugged driver who had been prescribed thousands of painkillers from multiple doctors at the same hospital. These doctors failed to check the CURES database to see whether their colleagues had already written the patient an identical prescription.

It’s estimated that only 8 percent of California doctors check the database before writing a prescription for a controlled substance. New York and Virginia recently required mandatory checks of their CURES-type databases, reducing doctor shopping in those states by 75 percent and 73 percent respectively.

Proposition 46 will require California doctors to follow suit and check the database before they first prescribe to a patient a Schedule II or III drug such as cocaine, methamphetamine, Demerol, OxyContin, anabolic steroids or codeine.

Requiring the check is a life-saving improvement to the law, and a far cry from the new “secret” and insecure database that No on 46 ads claim the measure would create.

The hospital and insurance companies behind the No on 46 ads have a lot of nerve to assume the mantle of privacy protectors. The perfect security record of CURES stands in stark contrast to the failure of these health care corporations to safeguard their own patient records.

According to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, from January 2013 through June 2014, hospitals and insurers including No on 46 funders exposed more than 1.5 million California patient records in data breaches.

A few recent careless breaches by Prop 46 opponents include:

No on 46 funders have also worked overtime to weaken patient privacy laws. This year the California Hospital Association pushed amendments to Assembly Bill 1755 that would have ended mandatory patient notification requirements and instead allowed each hospital to decide whether or not to inform patients when its records were negligently released. In 2012, the California Hospital Association supported amendments to AB 439 that would have eliminated the right of most patients to have their day in court when a health care provider exposed their personal records to strangers. The Consumer Federation of California and our privacy allies stopped both health care industry efforts to mug patient privacy rights.

Hospitals and insurance companies should stop scaring voter about Prop 46, clean up their own negligent security practices, and respect California medical privacy laws.

– See more at: http://consumercal.org/prop-46…

Statewide elections bring big challenges to Republican playbook

by Brian Leubitz

California Republicans really want to be like other Republicans. They want to win lots of elections and support some crazy, right-wing policies. But, it turns out in California, that’s kind of a non-starter. In fact, the odds are so stacked against that craziness, that Republicans statewide are well behind out of the starting gate. From Jim Newton of the LA Times:

Aaron McLear, senior advisor to the Kashkari campaign, pointed out to me last week that, for a Republican to win statewide, he or she needs to carry 95% of Republican voters, two-thirds of independents and about one-third of Democrats. That is, as he said, “tough, really tough.” (Jim Newton / LAT)

Much of this is demographics, as Newton discusses later in that article. I mean, how long can a party in California continue with nativist rhetoric. Heck, the former Minuteman leader (Asm. Tim Donnelly) was a serious Republican candidate for Governor this June. It is hard for a party to simultaneously take the Minutemen and Latinos seriously. You can’t be both racist and support a diverse California.

But it is clearly more than that for the CRP. It would be easy to just say that they should run a more moderate candidate. They’ve done that. Meg Whitman wasn’t really of the right-wing, and neither is Neel Kashkari. But unless another Arnold Schwarzenegger comes along, with something exceptional (like say a huge movie career), the branding of the California Republican Party is like a lead anchor around his or her poll numbers. It is exceedingly difficult, in the modern media atmosphere, to transcend party identification. Even Meg Whitman, with all of her millions, couldn’t accomplish the task.

One candidate can’t change lead a party from the wilderness, even if his name is Arnold Schwarzenegger. The California Republican Party is intent on becoming a regional party, and if that is going to change, it will take a long-term overhaul.

Ballots are in the mail. I’m voting yes.

by Brian Leubitz

In case you missed it, the election started a few days ago. Ballots went in the mail early this week, and by the end of this weekend, millions of votes will already have been cast.

So, how are you voting on those pesky ballot measures? NextTen has a helpful guide, California Choices, with information about the measures and who has taken a position on either side.

But here’s how I’m leaning as of right now. I probably won’t actually cast my ballot for another week or two, but this is my general inclination right now: Yes. On all of them. So, a quick rundown:

Prop 1: Water Bond: Yes

This is far from perfect. I’d prefer more money in conservation as opposed to storage projects, and there are a lot of implementation details still to be decided. However, with the current drought, I think it is pretty clear that we need to be spending money on water infrastructure. This gets us one step along the way.

Prop 2: Rainy Day Fund / Budget Stabilization: Yes

A little bit of smoothing in our boom and bust budget is probably a good thing. This law requires a reduction in reserves by school districts, which makes some education folks a bit nervous. But, in theory, the state won’t be making the massive cuts to education when the economy takes a bit of a hiccup. Again, some questions of how this will actually work are still to be ironed out, but this is generally worthy of a Yes vote.

Prop 45: Health Insurance Rates: Yes

Dave Jones is working hard to strengthen his office’s ability to review health insurance rates. The opponents argue that the review could delay plans making it to the health care exchange. I have been reassured by Insurance Commissioner Jones that this will not be an issue, timely review is indeed possible. If all works right with this measure, health insurance plans will just have to show that they are spending their money wisely and on medical care. I’m leaning towards Yes.

Prop 46: Medical safety: medical negligence limits and drug testing: YES

I’ve written about this measure several times. The caps on non-economic damages is unfair, provides cruel incentives, and doesn’t do what it purports to do (lower insurance costs). Privacy concerns about the drug testing are valid, but surely we can come up safeguards. This measure is long overdue in California. Please, Vote YES ON 46.

Prop 47: Criminal Sentencing: Yes

Sentencing reform championed by San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon. It will reduce non-violent offenders in our prisons, reduce the ridiculous amount of money we spend on our prisons while allowing us to increase money for treatment programs. All of this makes sense, I’m voting Yes.

Prop 48: Approve Tribal Gaming Compacts: Yes

A referendum that is more about the relationships between various tribes than anything else. Some current gaming tribes are less than pleased about a new casino being opened up within Central Valley city borders and off a reservation. I don’t love all the casinos opening up, but they are going to happen given the current state of the law. I can’t see any reason why this one is really any worse. I guess I’ll vote yes.

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.

GOP candidate for governor pictures very different GOP than actually exists

by Brian Leubitz

Neel Kashkari made a big speech this weekend at the California Republican Party’s convention. It was meant to do two things: shore up his base and project a vision of a moderate party that could face California’s future challenges. In many ways, these goals are diametrically opposed to each other.

It may have accomplished the base aspect, with convention goers seeming to be happy. Or at least they told the media that they were happy. Of course, it still wasn’t enough for Controller candidate Ashley Swearingen to be convinced:

Delegate Matt Kauble of Cerritos said he voted for Kashkari’s tea party rival, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks), in the June primary but was impressed by Kashkari’s passion about relieving poverty and his desire to appeal to a multiracial audience.

*** **** ***

Ashley Swearengin, running for controller, told reporters Friday that she hadn’t made up her mind between Kashkari and Brown because she hadn’t yet had a chance to meet with the Republican. State party chairman Jim Brulte labeled her strategy “Felony stupid” in an email exchange with other party members. (LA Times)

I must say, “felony stupid” is really an underused term. I think I’ll add it to my daily conversational repertoire. At any rate, base consolidation is a question best answered by FlashReport and the similar outlets. But the question of whether he, and the CRP, can speak to the broader California electorate is a different beast. So that’s where he comes up with this:

“When they said we don’t care about the poor, we don’t care about minorities, they have no idea what they’re talking about,” Kashkari said.(LA Times)

He backed all that up with historical connections, including the GOP’s support of the Civil Rights Act. And that is partially true. The civil rights legislation of the 60s and 70s wouldn’t have occured without the support of Northern Republicans. Except that most of those Republicans (see Chaffee, Lincoln) have left the GOP for the Democratic Party. And then there is the small matter of the now widely acknowledged Southern strategy.

Wouldn’t it be great if Kashkari’s vision were actually true? I would love to live in a world where there was robust debate between two parties focused on how to best ensure that no American went to bed hungry or homeless. But that world is not this one. No matter how you try to dress up the Republican party, especially the California Republican party, it is still a right-wing organization with signed contracts of inflexibility.

Maybe in another generation or so we could see two (or, preferably, more!) parties that can speak to the California electorate giving voters real options. But the CRP that Kashkari hopes to lead is not that one.

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill sponsored by the Consumer Federation of California to protect consumer privacy by restricting the use of spyware on rented computers.

Thanks to Assembly Bill 2667 (Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica), consumers who rent a computer or similar electronic device in California will not fall victim to the use of invasive privacy technologies by the merchant or manufacturer who sold the item. The Assembly and state Senate each approved the bill without opposition.

“Now that our legislation is signed, rent-to-own companies will no longer be able to use spyware to collect passwords and credit card and medical records, and to activate webcams on rented devices,” said Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California. “Consumers in California will now be protected against this unwarranted information gathering that makes consumers more vulnerable to identity theft and other fraud.”

The need for safeguards to protect consumers against egregious privacy violations has been documented by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). On March 10, 2014, the agency issued its Final Order Settling Charges that Aaron’s Inc. Allowed Franchisees to Spy on Consumers via Rental Computers. The FTC had previously taken action against software manufacturer DesignWare LLC and seven rent-to-own companies, including Aaron’s, on this issue.

“Keystroke logs displayed usernames and passwords for access to email accounts, social media websites, and financial institutions. Screenshots captured additional confidential details, including medical information, applications containing Social Security numbers, and bank and credit card statements. Webcams operating secretly inside computer users’ homes took photographs of computer users and anyone else within view of the camera. These included images of minor children as well as individuals not fully clothed and engaged in intimate conduct,” according to the FTC.

“When consumers contract with rent-to-own retailers for a laptop or other electronic device, they are often unaware that these devices can contain invasive software,” Assembly Member Bloom said when his bill went to the governor. “This bill protects consumers from having their personal information, including photographs, financial information and medical records, taken without their knowledge or consent.”

The rent-to-own industry is big business, with a reported $8.5 billion in revenues. The ranks of its customers more than doubled between 2003 and 2012, to 6 million. Four in 10 earn under $24,000 – part of a vast, vulnerable population whose immediate needs exceed their weekly paychecks. With AB 2667, Californians will be better protected in the privacy of their homes.