What 78 does:
Makes it an option for pharmaceutical companies to discount their prescription drugs for low-income residents.
Why we oppose it: The lack of an enforcement mechanism makes this proposition a dud.
What 79 does:
Forces pharmaceutical companies to discount their prescription drugs through financial disincentives.
Why we oppose it:
Problems of vague language and unlikely federal approval overwhelm this proposition’s promise.
At last, the feud over prescription-drug costs has reached the voters in the form of Propositions 78 and 79. But, unfortunately, these measures only disappoint. Without question we are in favor of lowering prescription-drug costs for low-income Californians, but neither of the two initiatives will accomplish that goal effectively.
Proposition 78 has no teeth. The fact that its chief proponents are pharmaceutical companies should be an immediate red flag for voters, and deservedly so. Yes, the measure would make certain uninsured, low-income individuals and families eligible for drug discounts, but the drug companies’ offer of those discounts would be entirely voluntary. With nothing to compel cooperation, the drug companies’ pledge to discount drugs is disingenuous at best; what would be the businesses’ incentive to volunteer to lose profits?
Unlike Proposition 78, Proposition 79 does have an enforcement mechanism, mainly linking the drug discounts to the state Medi-Cal health care program. Under the proposed measure, if a company refuses to discount its product, the drug will be removed from the pre-approved list of Medi-Cal prescriptions, which more or less means it will take longer for patients to get it, and thus, less likely that physicians will prescribe it.
The problem with this plan, however, is that any program linked to Medi-Cal is subject to approval by the federal government. The current administration is unlikely to agree to any plan that deals a blow to the pharmaceutical industry, one of its leading campaign contributors. If the feds do reject the plan, a legal headache will be the inevitable result.
Adding to those legal woes is a vague provision that would allow Californians to sue pharmaceutical companies for selling a drug at an “unconscionable price” or for seeking an “unreasonable profit,” though the measure fails to define either of the terms. Ridiculously vague laws only breed lawsuits and judicial activism — when the whole point of the initiative process is to legislate the will of the people. Inviting judges to legislate from the bench does nothing to advance that goal.
The ultimate flaw in any ballot measure is that it permanently ties the hands of the legislators. Because of this, any changes necessary to these highly technical initiatives — and they will almost definitely require revisions — can only be accomplished through more initiatives. It makes more sense to leave it up to the Legislature — replete with committees and experts who specialize in such topics — to pass a flexible alternative.
Vote “no” on both initiatives and let our lawmakers do their job.
