Proposition 35, the Medi-Cal funding measure on the Nov. 5 ballot, presents another example of special-interest ballot-box budgeting that limits the discretion of lawmakers and reduces flexibility to respond to fiscal crises. Voters should reject it.

If we’ve learned anything in the past few years, it’s that multibillion budget surpluses one year can morph into gigantic deficits the next. The governor and state lawmakers need flexibility to responsibly address the shortfalls.

California voters should not lock in funding allocations that favor doctors and hospitals over children and community health workers. Nor should they keep tying the hands of lawmakers, who must already contend with, for example, voter mandates for school funding, which must receive about 40% of the state budget; for prudent budget reserves; and for arts education.

At issue with Proposition 35 is a tax on health plans that provides $7.5 billion of the $161 billion needed to annually fund Medi-Cal — the federal-state health program for low-income people.

The tax is based on the number of people to whom the health plans provide coverage. The state leverages the tax money for matching funds from the federal government.

Medi-Cal, in turn, reimburses the health plans for almost all the tax, with the federal government covering the majority of the cost. In other words, it’s a tax that’s not really a tax but rather a way to pull in more federal money.

Proposition 35 is being sold as a measure that would secure that $7.5 billion in funding by permanently extending the tax on health plans. But this lock-in isn’t needed. State lawmakers, understanding how the tax leverages federal dollars, have generally levied and renewed it for nearly two decades and are incentivized to do so in the future.

Meanwhile, Proposition 35 would not only make the tax permanent, it would also dictate allocation of the spoils. It would pick winners and losers.

Not surprisingly, the winners include doctors, hospitals and emergency ambulance providers, which explains why they are major financial backers of the measure. Their funding would be protected and, in some cases, increased under Proposition 35.

Among the possible losers are community health workers, private nurses and children under age 5, who are currently protected from losing their Medi-Cal coverage.

To provide the additional funding for the winners under Proposition 35 and still preserve other Medi-Cal programs, the state would need to tap the general fund for another $1 billion to $2 billion annually in 2025 and 2026, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The current tax will expire at the end of 2026 unless the Legislature and the federal government extend it. But there’s every reason to believe state lawmakers will do their part, just as they have in the past.

Yet, Proposition 35 backers tout that their measure would make the tax permanent starting in 2027 — and use the notion of going after politically unpopular insurance companies for money as a selling point even though those companies will get their money back.

Backers of the ballot measure also say that the tax revenue has been diverted to bolster the state’s general fund. But the state this fiscal year will provide $62.4 billion to help fund Medi-Cal, including $35 billion from the general fund.

It’s fiscally reckless to keep using ballot measures to earmark unpredictable state revenues. Proposition 35, which is 43 pages long, “hamstrings our ability to have the kind of flexibility that’s required at the moment we’re living in,” says Gov. Gavin Newsom.

He’s right.

More funding for health care for the poor is a laudable goal. So are attempts to raise rates for doctors and other health care providers who serve Medi-Cal patients. Indeed, there are legitimate concerns about Medi-Cal patients not being able to find providers because doctors don’t want to take them on at low payment rates.

But the allocation of limited general fund money should be made when all the competing demands are weighed by state lawmakers. We shouldn’t be locking it in with a ballot measure few voters will ever understand.

The California Department of Justice (DOJ) releases its latest crime data every year at the beginning of July. The Criminal Justice Statistics Center collects, analyzes, and reports statistical data that provide valid measures of crime and the criminal justice process. It examines these data continuously to describe crime and the criminal justice system better and promote the responsible presentation and use of crime statistics.

According to the latest 2023 California Department of Justice data, most counties in the Bay Area had a decrease in crimes in 2023, including violent and property crimes. However, Alameda County still had an increase, especially a sharp rise in violent crimes.

Several cities in the Bay Area have shown high crime rates over the years. Read here to learn more about which city has the highest crime rates in the Bay Area, and why.

The California Department of Justice is completing a five-year effort to develop and implement a new state crime data repository, the California Incident-Based Reporting System (CIBRS), to house the new FBI statistical reporting format. Previously, California used the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Not all law enforcement agencies in the state have yet made the transition.

According to the DOJ’s annual crime report, not all agencies were able to submit a full year of crime data for 2023. Find your city or county on these three interactive charts to discover your city’s trends and quirks and compare them with other cities from 2013 to 2023.

Northern California hospital officials told a 31-year-old woman’s family that she had checked out — when the patient had actually died and her body kept in cold storage for a year, loved ones said in a civil lawsuit.

Jessie Marie Peterson had been suffering from Type 1 diabetes when she was admitted to Mercy San Juan Medical Center on April 6 last year, according to allegations made in a Sacramento County Superior Court lawsuit filed earlier this month by the patient’s family.

Days after she was admitted, Peterson’s mother Ginger Congi called Mercy San Juan to check on her daughter was told the patient had been discharged, according to the complaint.

The family filed a missing person’s report with the county sheriff’s department, posted notices around town and even interviewed local homeless people in hopes someone had seen Peterson.

“The family searched and searched for Jessie. It was not until April 12, 2024, that the Sacramento County Detective’s Office notified Jessie’s family that she was found deceased at Mercy San Juan hospital,” according to the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs’ attorney Marc Greenberg.

“At this point, Jessie’s body was so decomposed that an open casket funeral was not feasible, and Jessie’s fingerprints were not even obtainable for any keepsake.”

The decomposition also made it impossible for an autopsy to determine “whether medical malpractice played any role” in Peterson’s death, the lawsuit said.

The family eventually found out Peterson died on April 8 last year, but it took until April 4 of this year for a death certificate to be signed by Dr. Nadeem Mukhtar.

For almost all this time, Peterson’s body had been kept shelf No. Red 22A in an off-site cold storage unit, according to hospital records obtained by the family.

The family is asking for $25 million for the hospital’s alleged negligence.

A representative for Dignity Health, the corporate umbrella for the hospital, could not be immediately reached for comment on Thursday.

“Mercy San Juan hospital advertises that ‘at our care facilities, we take pride in treating all people with dignity and respect.’ In this case, there was no dignity and no respect,” Greenberg said.

“Mercy San Juan hospital failed in its most fundamental duty to notify Jessie’s family of her death. Mercy San Juan stored Jessie in an off-site warehouse and she was left to decompose for nearly a year while her family relentlessly inquired about her whereabouts.”