Proposition 34, titled Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues By Certain Health Care Providers, was a California ballot proposition and initiative statute in the 2024 general election on November 5.[1][2] The proposition requires health care providers that have spent over $100 million in any 10-year period on anything other than direct patient care, and operated multifamily housing with over 500 high-severity health and safety violations, to spend 98% of the revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care.[3][4]
Supporters argue that health care providers, especially those that receive government subsidies such as those through the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, should spend most of their funds on direct patient care and not divert money to unrelated projects.[3][5][6][7]
Opponents argue that the proposition is a "revenge initiative" designed to specifically target the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the only group in California who seems to match Proposition 34's restrictions. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation was the primary supporter and financial backer of this year's Proposition 33, as well as 2018 California Proposition 10, and 2020 California Proposition 21; all similar rent control proposals designed to overturn the Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which all failed with almost identical margins (60-40), while the California Apartment Association, a major supporter of this Proposition 34, was a major opponent of Proposition 33 and the other similar rent control proposals.[3][5][6]
^ Cadelago, Christopher (2023-08-30). "California proposal would sideline a prolific ballot measure player - The ballot initiative would block one man from using his nonprofit to fund his political agenda". Politico. AHF relies on the decades-old federal drug discount program designed to help hospitals and other healthcare nonprofits treat low-income patients. Known as 340B, it allows the organization to purchase prescriptions at a deep discount and charge public programs the standard amount. AHF has long argued that it spends 340B funds for their intended purpose and that the foundation is allowed to spend a certain percentage on political activity. But its spending on campaigns, a growing portfolio of property and to bring in paid consultants such as former California Senate Pro Tem Kevin de León, now a member of the Los Angeles City Council, has drawn persistent scrutiny.
Yes
