Visit the no-spin zone for the who, what, and why of Proposition 67.
The Background
Proposition 67 would add a surcharge on telephone calls within California to fund improvements in emergency care. Both sides of the debate are using strong language and investing millions of dollars in what they agree is a high-stakes race.
So far, the No side is raising twice as much funding as… Read more »
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is Prop. 67?
- Who funded the signature drive to get the initiative on the ballot?
- Who wrote the arguments for and against the initiative?
- How would Prop. 67 be paid for?
- Who would oversee the disbursement of funds?
- Who supports Prop. 67?
- Who opposes Prop. 67?
- How much revenue would Prop. 67 generate for emergency care?
- How would accountability be provided for?
Prop. 67 reimburses hospitals and doctors for uncompensated emergency services to the uninsured. Much smaller proportions will go toward urgent care funding for serving uninsured patients, emergency personnel training and equipment to hospitals and clinics, and improved administration for the 911 emergency telephone system.
The major contributors ($50,000+) funding the signature drive were: California Emergency Physicians Medical Group; Emergency Physicians Medical Group, Inc.; Team Health, Inc.
The argument in favor of Prop. 67 was written by Darlene Bradley, R.N., president, California Emergency Nurses Association; Michael J. Sexton, M.D., president-elect, California Medical Association; and Carmela Castellano, CEO, California Primary Care Association. The argument against Prop. 67 was written by L.W. “Chip” Yarborough, president, California Chapter of the National Emergency Number Association; H.L. “Hank” Lacayo, president, Congress of California Seniors; and Larry McCarthy, president, California Taxpayers’ Association.
The initiative proposes increasing an existing surcharge on calls made within California to 3 percent. Service providers would collect the surcharge on a monthly basis. The surcharge cannot exceed 50 cents a month for each residential line. Low-income families and seniors, as well as others who qualify for lifeline phone services, will be exempted. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the tax would raise approximately $500 million annually for emergency and medical services.
A system of accounts would be created, and administration of these accounts would be carried out through existing bodies:
- 60 percent of revenues raised would be deposited in the Emergency and Trauma Hospital Services Account for the reimbursement of hospitals and uncompensated emergency services. This account will be administered by the Department of Health Services.
- 30.5 percent will be deposited to the Emergency and Trauma Physician Uninsured Account for claims by physicians and surgeons who are not compensated for provided services. This account will also be administered by the Department of Health Services.
- 5 percent will be deposited in the Community Clinics Urgent Care Account for urgent care services for the uninsured. This account will be administered by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.
- 3.75 percent will be deposited in the Emergency and Trauma First Responders Account toward equipment and training for firefighters and paramedics. This account will be administered by the Office of State Fire Marshall.
- 0.75 percent will be deposited in 911 Account for the improvement of the 911-telephone service. This account will be administered by the Department of General Services.
The registered committees supporting Prop. 67 are the Coalition to Preserve Emergency Care and the American College of Emergency Physicians State Chapter of California, Inc. Initiative Fund (CAL/ACEP).
The registered committee opposing Prop. 67 is Californians to Stop the Phone Tax Committee.
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Prop. 67 would raise $500 million in additional revenues for emergency care services. Moreover, $32 million would be directed from the Prop. 99 fund for the reimbursement of uncompensated care. In addition, funds would be transferred from counties’ Maddy Funds to the state for uncompensated medical care. The LAO estimates the Maddy Funds would amount to approximately $32 million per year. Administrative costs would be several million dollars and would be offset by revenues raised through Prop. 67. Likewise, local administration costs would be paid through Prop. 67 revenues.
The administrative body of each account would be required, upon request, to provide any member of the public with a list of physicians, clinics, and hospitals that received funding as well as the amount of funds received. Such lists will be compiled semi-annually. The administrative bodies in charge of the different accounts are entitled to conduct audits of any funds received under Prop. 67.
