Proposition 35: Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services. Initiative Statute.
Protect Access to Health Care Act of 2024.
Summary
Excerpted directly from the LAO Prop. 35 Analysis
Proposition 35 (Prop. 35) is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that would 1) require the state to request federal approval for the Managed Care Organization tax on an ongoing basis and 2) allocate those dollars for certain health care investments. (CA Budget and Policy Center)
Prop. 35 would make the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans called the Managed Care Organization Provider Tax (MCO or “health plan tax”) permanent, beginning in 2027. The state would still need federal approval to charge the tax. The tax would continue to be based on the number of people to whom health plans provide health coverage. The proposition allows the state to change the tax, if needed, and to get federal approval, within certain limits.
Currently, the health plan tax charges plans based on the number of people to whom they provide health coverage, including those in Medi-Cal. The tax rate is higher for those in Medi-Cal compared to other kinds of health coverage.
Medi-Cal is a federal-state program that provides health coverage for low-income people. The federal government and the state share the cost of the program. By charging the health plan tax, the state can receive more federal funding.
The Legislature has not permanently approved this tax. Instead, it has approved it for a few years at a time, and it is set to expire in 2026. Both the California Legislature and the federal government must approve it again.
If the tax is also approved by the federal government, it will provide revenues to pay for health care services for low-income families with children, seniors, disabled persons, and other Medi-Cal recipients. It guarantees that all of the revenue from the continued tax will be spent on investments to improve access to critical health care services and makes it impossible to divert these dollars to unrelated uses.
Proposition 35 also creates rules on how to use the revenue. Generally, these rules require the state to use more of the revenue to increase funding for Medi-Cal and other health programs. The rules are different in the short term (in 2025 and 2026) and the long term (in 2027 and after). Proposition 35 also changes which Medi-Cal services and other health programs get funding increases compared to current law.
Fiscal Impact
In the short term, there would be no change to the existing temporary tax on health plans. There is anticipated increase in funding for Medi-Cal and other health programs between roughly $2 billion and $5 billion annually (including federal funds). Increased state costs between roughly $1 billion to $2 billion annually to implement funding increases.
In the long term, unknown effect on state tax revenue, health program funding, and state costs. Fiscal effects depend on many factors, such as whether the Legislature would continue to approve the tax on health plans in the future if Proposition 35 is not passed by voters.
What your vote means
A YES vote on this measure means: The existing state tax on health plan, which is set to expire in 2026, that provides funding for certain health programs would become permanent. New rules would direct how the state must use the revenue.
A NO vote on this measure means: An existing state tax on health plans would end in 2027, unless the Legislature continues it. The new rules would not become law.
Official Voter Information
California Secretary of State, Text of Proposed Laws, Prop. 35 begins on page 109
California Secretary of State and State Attorney General, Voter Information Guide, Summary Analysis of Prop. 35
California Secretary of State,Quick Reference Guide Prop. 35
California Legislative Analyst's Office, Proposition 35
California Secretary of State, Cal-Access, Cal-Access Campaign Finance Activity Prop. 35
California Secretary of State, Cal-Access: Campaign contributions for Proposition 35
California Fair Political Practices Commission, November 2024 General Election Top Contributors Lists
Non-partisan Voter Information
CalMatters Prop 35 Explained (video)
Explicación de la Proposición 35 en las elecciones de California de 2024 (video)
California Budget and Policy Center
Project for an Informed Electorate Sacramento State, Prop. 35 PIE Initiative Explainer (video)
Public Opinion Polls
Public Policy Institute of California Statewide Survey, Sept. 2024
Public Policy Institute of California Statewide Survey, Oct. 2024
Pro/Con Statements
Pro | Con |
---|---|
Proposition 35 protects Med-iCal. It will use the existing Managed Care Organization Provider Tax (MCO) to ensure permanent increased funding for Medi-Cal payments including hospitals and ambulance services. The proposal will prevent the state from redirecting revenue from this tax for non-health care purposes. The Yes on Prop. 35 campaign states: Prop 35 is supported by health care workers, physicians, community health centers, Planned Parenthood, health plans and emergency responders. The measure will address our most urgent health care priorities by securing dedicated, ongoing funding – without raising taxes on individuals – to protect and expand access to care for 15 million patients on Medi-Cal and all Californians. (VoteYes35.com, Get the Facts) |
No argument against Prop. 35 was submitted to be included in the Official Voter Information Guide. However, organizations have stated that they oppose Prop. 35 because of its restriction on how the MCO tax revenue funds can be used, the caps on the tax, and who the decision makers are in making those determinations.(The Children’s Partnership, Vote ‘No’ On Prop. 35). The League of Women Voters of California note that they are “generally opposed to “ballot-box budgeting,” which limits the legislature’s flexibility to make budgetary decisions and adjust priorities based on emerging and essential needs. Budgetary decisions should be made by the legislature, not by earmarking funds through ballot initiatives. Earmarking can undermine the state’s fiscal stability and its ability to effectively respond to changing conditions. While there is no organized opposition to the measure, Governor Newsom has expressed concerns that it hamstrings the state’s flexibility”. “Another problem is that Prop 35 could inadvertently decrease overall revenue. This is because the proposition imposes a low cap on taxes collected from non-Medi-Cal enrollees. This cap is designed to prevent the tax from becoming overly burdensome on non-Medi-Cal health plans, but it also introduces a potential risk. If the federal government changes the rules to require a greater share of the tax to come from commercial enrollees, this cap could limit the amount of total revenue that can be collected, potentially reducing the overall effectiveness of the tax.” (League of Women Voters California, Recommendation on Prop. 35, 2024) |
Supporters | Opponents |
---|---|