Propuesta 44: Reglas de gasto de las clínicas
EXIGE QUE LAS CLÍNICAS DE SALUD COMUNITARIAS DESTINEN EL 90 % DE SUS INGRESOS A SERVICIOS DEL PROGRAMA.
Ley por iniciativa. Una ley estatal que los votantes pusieron en la boleta al firmar peticiones.
En palabras sencillas
La Propuesta 44 exigiría que las clínicas privadas sin fines de lucro de la red de seguridad gasten al menos el 90 por ciento de sus ingresos en servicios de atención médica. Hoy informan un promedio de cerca del 80 por ciento, aunque varía. El Fiscal General definiría con más detalle qué gastos cuentan. Las clínicas que no lleguen a esa meta pagarían al estado una multa igual a la diferencia que les falte. Podrían recuperarla si cumplen en un plazo de cinco años. De lo contrario, el estado se queda con el dinero para programas de desarrollo de la fuerza laboral de las clínicas. Las clínicas podrían pedir exenciones temporales en algunos casos. Los informes falsos o el aumento artificial de la proporción podrían llevar a cargos penales. La aplicación de la ley por parte del estado costaría unas decenas de millones de dólares al año, en la parte baja de ese rango, que se cubrirían con cuotas de las clínicas. Otros costos son inciertos, y algunas clínicas que no puedan cumplir podrían cerrar.
UN VOTO POR SÍ SIGNIFICA
Determinadas clínicas de atención médica privadas sin fines de lucro tendrían que destinar al menos el 90 % de sus ingresos anuales a la prestación de servicios de atención médica.
UN VOTO POR NO SIGNIFICA
El nuevo requisito sobre el gasto de las clínicas de atención médica no entraría en vigor.
Texto oficial en español de la Guía Oficial de Información para el Votante de California.
Fuente: guía oficial para el votanteRótulo oficial de la boleta
Las palabras exactas de su boleta. Toque para leer.
REQUIRES COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINICS SPEND 90% OF REVENUE ON PROGRAM SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on "program services" advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees.
Fuente: Registro de Votantes del Condado de Los Ángeles, medidas en la boleta
Texto oficial en inglés. Lea la guía oficial para el votante en español.
Argumentos oficiales
Escritos por quienes apoyan y quienes se oponen, e impresos palabra por palabra en la guía oficial estatal para el votante. Los argumentos impresos en esta página son las opiniones de sus autores y ninguna agencia oficial ha verificado su exactitud.
Texto oficial en inglés. Lea la guía oficial para el votante en español (PDF).
Argumento a favor
De quienes apoyanFirmado por Shawna Brown and Brisa J. Barrera. Toque para leer.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 44 TO PUT PATIENTS FIRST AND HOLD CLINICS ACCOUNTABLE.
California's community health clinics receive billions of taxpayer dollars to provide care for people who need it most. Yet some clinics spend less than half of their funding on patient care and services, while large portions of their revenue go to bloated CEO salaries and other wasteful spending. As a result, patients wait months for appointments and healthcare workers struggle with staffing shortages, outdated equipment, and limited resources.
WHY PROP. 44 IS NEEDED
Community health clinics receive taxpayer funding for one purpose: to provide primary care, mental health services, dental care, prenatal care, vaccinations, and other essential services to millions of children, seniors, working families, and Californians with disabilities. Without access to these clinics, many patients would not get the care they urgently need. But some clinic CEOs are misusing taxpayer dollars by diverting millions to inflated executive salaries and other non-essentials.
With massive federal healthcare cuts expected to eliminate billions in funding for California's healthcare system, community clinics will be among the hardest hit. Clinics may be forced to reduce services, lay off staff, or even close their doors. That means every healthcare dollar matters more than ever. California taxpayers can't afford to waste resources that should be helping patients receive timely, high-quality care.
PROP. 44 DIRECTS HEALTHCARE DOLLARS TO PATIENT CARE
Proposition 44 is simple. It requires community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenue on their non-profit mission - patient care and the services that make care possible. That could include medical visits, mental health care, dental care, medications, medical equipment, transportation, language interpretation, care coordination, outreach, and other services that serve the clinics' charitable healthcare mission.
What doesn't count towards the 90%: excessive CEO pay, lavish events, bloated overhead, and other spending that takes resources away from the clinic's core mission of caring for patients.
PROP. 44 HOLDS CLINICS ACCOUNTABLE
Proposition 44 will increase transparency by requiring clinics to publicly report how healthcare dollars are spent, so patients and taxpayers can hold them accountable. Currently, there are hundreds of millions of dollars in the clinic system that are not being spent on the core mission of patient care. Prop. 44 will make sure those healthcare dollars go where they can do the most good.
This measure does not cut clinic funding or reduce services patients rely on. Clinics that meet the standard keep every dollar, and even clinics that fall short can recover any penalties by coming into compliance. Unrecovered penalties, if any, are redirected to recruiting, training, and retaining the healthcare workers our clinics desperately need. Every dollar stays in the healthcare system - prioritized for patient care instead of excessive overhead.
Join healthcare workers, patients, and Californians who believe accountability strengthens our healthcare system.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 44 TO PUT PATIENTS FIRST.
Shawna Brown, Initiative Proponent
Brisa J. Barrera, Community Clinic Worker
Respuesta al argumento a favor
De quienes se oponenFirmado por Brent K Sugimoto, Kelly McCue, and Susanne J. Spano. Toque para leer.
PROP. 44 IS A DANGEROUS SPECIAL INTEREST MEASURE THAT THREATENS CARE FOR MILLIONS
Make no mistake: Prop. 44 is not about resources for patient care. Prop. 44 is a dangerous measure written and funded entirely by one special interest that threatens access to care for millions. Prop. 44 imposes unworkable restrictions that actually prevent community clinics from providing the care patients need.
NURSES, DOCTORS AND PATIENT ADVOCATES ALL AGREE: PROP. 44 WILL HURT PATIENTS. Prop. 44 will:
• Cut billions from health clinics every year. • Force clinics to shut down and cut services. • Eliminate care for millions. • Send more patients to hospital ERs - increasing wait times for all families.
PROP. 44 IS UNNECESSARY. COMMUNITY CLINICS ARE STRICTLY REGULATED.
Community clinics are heavily regulated, with strict rules requiring resources be spent on patient care and serving their communities. Federal and state laws require regular audits and public reporting of clinic spending. Every community clinic is not-for-profit - led by a board that includes patients - requiring funds to be spent on patient care and community benefits - not corporate profits.
SPECIAL INTERESTS PUSHING PROP. 44 ARE USING PATIENTS AS PAWNS
Prop. 44 is a shameful power play by one special interest abusing the ballot measure process to gain political leverage over health clinics. This same special interest has spent $140 million pushing dozens of harmful ballot measures against hospitals, clinics and physicians, including three unsuccessful dialysis propositions that voters overwhelmingly rejected.
JOIN PATIENTS, NURSES, DOCTORS, AND COMMUNITY LEADERS: NO ON PROP. 44.
Prop. 44 is opposed by:
• American Academy of Pediatrics CA • California School Nurses Organization • California Medical Association • American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists District IX • Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA • American College of Emergency Physicians CA • California Academy of Family Physicians
www.NoProp44.com
Brent K Sugimoto, MD, FAAFP, President-Elect
California Academy of Family Physicians
Kelly McCue, MD, Immediate Past Chair
American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists District IX
Susanne J. Spano, MD, FACEP, President
American College of Emergency Physicians, California Chapter
Argumento en contra
De quienes se oponenFirmado por Eric Ball, Katie Nilsson, and René Bravo. Toque para leer.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 44: STOP THE ATTACK ON PATIENTS & COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINICS
Prop. 44 is a dangerous, poorly drafted measure that would threaten care for millions of California patients.
Prop. 44 imposes deeply flawed and unworkable restrictions that prevent community clinics from providing the care patients need. Economic and health experts warn Prop. 44 will:
• Cut $1.7 billion from health clinics in the first year alone. • Cause 88% of all clinics in the state to operate at a loss. • Force thousands of clinics throughout the state to cut back patient services or shut down entirely. • Eliminate care for millions of Californians. • Send more patients to hospital emergency rooms - increasing wait times for all families.
PROP. 44 ARBITRARILY RESTRICTS SPENDING ON VITAL PATIENT SERVICES
Prop. 44 is so poorly written that it restricts clinics from spending resources on essential staff and services, including nurse managers, physician leaders, translation services, insurance assistance and community education. It even restricts clinics from funding mammogram, X-ray and CT machines, information technology and expanding or upgrading clinics.
PROP. 44 DECIMATES THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND HURTS ALL PATIENTS
Community health clinics provide primary care, prenatal care, urgent care, mental and behavioral health services, telehealth, and dental services. They operate school-based health clinics that care for hundreds of thousands of children.
Community clinics serve 1 in 4 Medi-Cal patients, the uninsured, working families, seniors, veterans, and children. In many rural and medically underserved communities, community health clinics are the only source of care within hundreds of miles.
Prop. 44 will make our bad healthcare problems even worse - increasing patient wait times and eliminating the only source of care for many patients.
PROP. 44 IS UNNECESSARY. COMMUNITY CLINICS ARE STRICTLY REGULATED.
Community clinics are already heavily regulated by the federal and state governments, with strict funding rules on patient care and essential services, and regular mandatory public audits. All clinics are overseen by patient board members, to ensure care is focused on community needs. And clinics are non-profits legally required to focus resources on patient services and community benefits.
PROP. 44 OPPOSED BY PATIENTS, NURSES, DOCTORS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS
"Prop. 44 will eliminate the only source of care in many communities. Please vote NO." - Kim Yu, MD, FAAFP, President, California Academy of Family Physicians
"Community clinics are a lifeline for my family and millions across California. Please, protect patients like me. Reject Prop. 44." - Carmen Huertero, Clinic Patient, San Marcos, CA
"Prop. 44 threatens women's access to healthcare at a time when it's already under attack. Vote No." - Jodi Hicks, President & CEO, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
"By shutting down clinics, Prop. 44 will force millions of patients into already overcrowded emergency rooms - increasing wait times for everyone." - Susanne J Spano, MD, FACEP, President, American College of Emergency Physicians, California
"Prop. 44 threatens to shut down hundreds of school-based clinics that provide primary care, vaccinations, health screenings and mental health services for tens of thousands of children. Vote NO." - Katie Nilsson, RN, President, California School Nurses Organization
Prop. 44 Opposed By:
• American Academy of Pediatrics, California • California School Nurses Organization • California Medical Association • California Primary Care Association, representing thousands of community health centers and clinics • American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists District IX • Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California • National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter • American College of Emergency Physicians, California • California Academy of Family Physicians
www.NoProp44.com
Eric Ball, MD, FAAP, President
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
Katie Nilsson, RN, President
California School Nurses Organization
René Bravo, M.D., President
California Medical Association
Respuesta al argumento en contra
De quienes apoyanFirmado por Shawna Brown and Brisa J. Barrera. Toque para leer.
DON'T BE FOOLED BY SCARE TACTICS.
Highly paid clinic executives want you to believe this measure will close clinics, eliminate services, and hurt patients. Those claims are false.
PROP. 44 PROTECTS PATIENT CARE - IT DOESN'T CUT IT.
Proposition 44 simply requires that 90% of clinic revenue be spent on clinics' non-profit mission: patient care and services that support care. This CAN INCLUDE: Transportation, language interpretation, care coordination, community outreach, nurse managers and clinical staff, medical equipment and information technology, and mental health, dental, and preventative care. The opposition falsely claims these services would be cut, but Prop. 44 is designed to protect spending that serves patients.
PROP. 44 PREVENTS PRECIOUS RESOURCES FROM BEING DIVERTED AWAY FROM PATIENT CARE
Prop. 44 seeks to reduce spending on: Excessive CEO pay, lavish events, expensive consultants, and unnecessary administrative spending. That means healthcare dollars would go where they belong: Caring for patients.
WHY ARE CLINIC EXECUTIVES FIGHTING ACCOUNTABILITY?
The campaign against Prop. 44 is funded by the same highly paid clinic executives who benefit from the current system. If today's oversight were enough, some clinics wouldn't be spending less than half of their funding on patient care and services. The real threat to clinics isn't accountability, it's devastating federal healthcare cuts. Patients can't afford to see precious funding spent on excessive CEO compensation and other non-essentials while they wait months for appointments and healthcare workers struggle with understaffing and limited resources.
PUT PATIENTS FIRST, NOT CLINIC CEOS.
Vote YES on Proposition 44.
Shawna Brown, Initiative Proponent
Brisa J. Barrera, Community Clinic Worker
Qué posición tienen los grupos
Todos los grupos de nuestra lista, por categoría. Cada posición enlaza a la guía publicada por el propio grupo.
Definiciones de las etiquetas Las citas son las propias palabras de cada grupo, copiadas exactamente.
Partidos políticos
10 grupos
Los partidos estatales y del condado son grupos separados y pueden tener posiciones distintas.
American Independent Party
Sin posición
American Independent Party Su guía, revisada el 15 de octubre de 2026California Democratic Party
No
Sus palabras: "Proposition 44: Oppose"
California Democratic Party Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026California Republican Party
No
Sus palabras: "Prop 44: oppose"
California Republican Party Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026Green Party of California
Sí
Sus palabras: "YES on Prop 44: Business Health Governance"
Green Party of California Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026Green Party of LA County
Sin posición
Green Party of LA County Su guía, revisada el 15 de octubre de 2026LA County Democratic Party
No
Sus palabras: "STATEWIDE Prop 44 Spending Requirements for Federally Qualified Health Centers Initiative NO"
LA County Democratic Party Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026LA Hispanic Republican Club
Sin posición
LA Hispanic Republican Club Dónde buscamos (revisión: 18 de oct. de 2026)Libertarian Party of California
No
Sus palabras: "Community Health Clinic Spending Requirements ❌ NO"
Libertarian Party of California Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026Peace and Freedom Party
Sí
Sus palabras: "Proposition 44 - YES - would prohibit federally-qualified healthcare clinics from spending less than 90% of their annual revenue on mission-related purposes."
Peace and Freedom Party Fuente, revisado el 18 de oct. de 2026Republican Party of LA County
No
Su herramienta muestra: Prop 44: NO
Republican Party of LA County Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026
Medios de noticias
5 grupos
Estos son los únicos medios de noticias que encontramos con respaldos publicados para esta elección. Sugiera otro.
Knock LA
No
Sus palabras: "State Measure 44: No"
Knock LA Fuente, revisado el 18 de oct. de 2026La Opinión
No
Sus palabras: "Editorial: No a la Proposición 44 | La Opinión se opone a la misma y llama a sus lectores a votar en contra de ella."
La Opinión Fuente, revisado el 18 de oct. de 2026Los Angeles Daily News
No
Sus palabras: "Proposition 44: No"
Los Angeles Daily News Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026Los Angeles Sentinel
Sí
Sus palabras: "Prop 44 | YES"
Los Angeles Sentinel Fuente, revisado el 18 de oct. de 2026Los Angeles Times
Sin posición
Los Angeles Times Dónde buscamos: la página de editoriales del LA Times (revisión: 18 de oct. de 2026)
Sindicatos
9 grupos
California Labor Federation
Sí
Sus palabras: "Prop 44: Requires Community Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Services Recommend: SUPPORT"
California Labor Federation Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026California Teachers Association
No
Sus palabras: "Proposition 44 - Clinic Funding Transparency Act Oppose"
California Teachers Association Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026LA County Federation of Labor
Sí
Sus palabras: "Prop 44: Requires Community Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Services - Yes"
LA County Federation of Labor Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026LA County Firefighters Local 1014
Sin posición
LA County Firefighters Local 1014 Su guía, revisada el 18 de oct. de 2026LA/OC Building and Construction Trades Council
Sin posición
LA/OC Building and Construction Trades Council Su guía, revisada el 18 de oct. de 2026Los Angeles Police Protective League
Sin posición
Los Angeles Police Protective League Dónde buscamos (revisión: 18 de oct. de 2026)SEIU Local 721
Neutral
Sus palabras: "44 Spending Requirements for Federally Qualified Health Centers Initiative NEUTRAL"
SEIU Local 721 Fuente, revisado el 18 de oct. de 2026UNITE HERE Local 11
Sí
Sus palabras: "Proposition 44: Requires Community Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Services | Recommend: YES"
UNITE HERE Local 11 Fuente, revisado el 18 de oct. de 2026United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA)
No
Sus palabras: "NO | Prop 44 | Restrictions on community clinics"
United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) Fuente, revisado el 18 de oct. de 2026
Organizaciones empresariales
3 grupos
BizFed (LA County Business Federation)
Sin posición
BizFed (LA County Business Federation) Dónde buscamos (revisión: 18 de oct. de 2026)CalChamber
No
Sus palabras: "Proposition 44: Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services (NO)"
CalChamber Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026LA Area Chamber of Commerce
Sin posición
LA Area Chamber of Commerce Su guía, revisada el 18 de oct. de 2026
Grupos cívicos y de buen gobierno
1 grupo
League of Women Voters of California
No
Sus palabras: "Prop 44 could reduce access to health care for Californians who already have the fewest options."
League of Women Voters of California Fuente, revisado el 15 de oct. de 2026
Grupos de causas y defensa
3 grupos
Abundant Housing LA
Sin posición
Abundant Housing LA Su guía, revisada el 18 de oct. de 2026LA Forward
No
Sus palabras: "Proposition 44 - Clinic spending on patient careOppose | LA Forward recommends that you vote no on Proposition 44."
LA Forward Fuente, revisado el 18 de oct. de 2026Sierra Club Angeles Chapter
Sin posición
Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Su guía, revisada el 18 de oct. de 2026
Enlaces oficiales
Sobre el resumen
Resumen redactado con IA a partir del análisis oficial y comparado con él mediante revisión automática. Lea el análisis oficial