Danville, CA — Today Bob Pack, the author of Proposition 46, called on California television and radio stations to recall No on 46 ads because they mislead voters by claiming “patients” instead of insurance companies are behind the campaign. Pack filed a formal complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission that No on 46 has violated California campaign disclosure laws requiring campaign committees disclose the economic or other special interest of the committee’s primary funders.
Insurance companies have contributed $42.8 million of the $56.5 million given to the No on 46 campaign.
“How dare the insurance industry claim the mantle of ‘patients’ after blocking life-saving patient safety reforms for decades,” said Bob Pack, the author of Prop 46 who lost his two young children due to medical negligence. “No on 46’s misleading attack ads, funded by mostly insurance industry money, pretend that they are a public campaign for patients. California’s TV and radio stations have a duty to the public to take these ads down until voters are told the insurance industry is really behind No on 46.”
Read the complaint here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/FPPCComplaintProp46.pdf
State law requires campaign committees, such as No on 46, to describe in descending order the economic interests of the committee’s major donors. The No on 46 campaign committee is officially known as “No on 46 – Patients, Providers and Healthcare Insurers to Contain Health Costs.” In order to confuse voters, the No on 46 committee follows the reverse order of contributions, listing individual donors first and insurance companies last. Further, almost all of the contributors are medical malpractice insurance companies – not healthcare insurers.
According to the Secretary of State, 67% of the contributions to No on 46 have come from medical malpractice insurance companies: the Cooperative of American Physicians (over $10.1 million), The Doctors Company ($10 million), NorCal Mutual Insurance Company ($10 million), the Medical Insurance Exchange of California ($5 million), The Dentist Insurance Company (over $1.6 million), and The Mutual Risk Retention Group ($1 million). Kaiser, the only healthcare insurance company, has given $5 million.
“Considering who’s really opposed to Prop 46’s reforms, their committee should be called ‘Medical Malpractice And Health Insurance Companies, Hospitals, and Medical Lobbyists To Protect Profits At the Expense of Patients,’” said Pack. “Voters – and California law – demand transparency. I’ve asked for an honest debate of the grave patient safety issues at stake, but the insurance companies would rather hide behind deception and negative attack ads. The voters deserve better and that’s why these ads should be taken down immediately.”
Bob Pack lost his two children, Troy, 10, and 7-year-old Alana, to a drunk and drugged driver who had doctor-shopped thousands of pills from multiple doctors at the same Kaiser hospital who never verified she had an injury.
Proposition 46, the Troy and Alana Pack Patient Safety Act, will:
• Enact the first law in the nation to require random drug and alcohol tests of physicians in hospitals, modeled after the Federal Aviation Administration testing program that has successfully reduced substance abuse by pilots;
• Mandate that prescribers check California’s existing statewide prescription drug database known as CURES when prescribing narcotics to first-time patients, in order to curb doctor-shopping and the prescription drug epidemic;
• And, Promote justice for patients and legal deterrence to wrongdoing by adjusting California’s cap on compensation for victims of medical negligence to account for 38 years of inflation – the unadjusted cap prevents many victims from holding doctors who harm them accountable.
Learn more about Proposition 46 and the campaign for patient safety at: www.yeson46.org
Paid for by Consumer Watchdog Campaign – Yes on 46, a coalition of attorneys, consumer advocates, and patients. 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Ste. 112, Santa Monica, CA 90405. Major Funding by Aitken, Aitken & Cohn, LLP.