Prop. 79 has earned the endorsement of a number of newspapers throughout the state, while Prop. 78 has failed to garner a single endorsement from any California newspaper. Thus far, all California newspapers have urged a “no” vote on Prop 78. Here are some excerpts of recent endorsements, followed by the full text of editorials in favor of Prop. 79.

Excerpts From Recent Editorials

Napa Valley Register, October 31, 2005 - read full editorial -

We believe it proper that the state of California use its buying muscle to make drugs more affordable to citizens. We also believe that if the drug companies do not engage in questionable pricing schemes, they needn't worry about the price-gouging lawsuits or state oversight.

Many Californians need relief from high prescription drug costs. We urge a yes vote on Proposition 79.

San Francisco Chronicle, October 24, 2005 - read full editorial -

“Proposition 79 marks an important step toward offering prescription drugs at reasonable prices to large numbers of uninsured and underinsured Californians. We recommend a "no'' vote on Prop. 78 and a "yes'' vote on Prop. 79.”

Stockton Record, Oct 13, 2005 - read full editorial -

“There's no argument the present system isn't working and needs reform. The price of drugs -- some not just needed to enhance life but to continue it -- are out of control. The most vulnerable are the least able to pay those prices.

Proposition 78 benefits drug companies. Proposition 79 benefits California residents.”

Visalia Times-Delta, October 12, 2005 - read full editorial -

“After the rhetoric and exaggeration has been digested, voters need to know only one thing to distinguish between Propositions 78 and 79, both of which propose a discount drug program for the indigent and elderly:

Proposition 79 serves more patients at a lower cost to the patient.

For that reason alone, we recommend voters choose Proposition 79 and reject Proposition 78.”

San Francisco Bay Guardian, October 12, 2005 - read full editorial -

“But there's a big difference between Proposition 79, the result of a long community-based effort, and Proposition 78, the pharmaceutical companies' dirty little plan to block Prop. 79.

To put it simply, Prop. 79 has a good chance of working, while Prop. 78 is a big ruse.”

Full Text of Editorials

Napa Valley Register, October 31, 2005

EDITORIAL: Prop. 79: A better alternative on drug prices

On Nov. 8, Californians will have the chance to vote on two measures designed to make prescription drugs more affordable.

Proposition 78, an industry-backed measure, is the more modest of the two.

Proposition 79, supported by consumer groups, is more ambitious.

Recently, the Register editorial board held a meeting with advocates for both measures. Kristine Yahn, a nurse, is the leader of the yes on 78 campaign. Gary Passmore, from the California Congress of Seniors, represented supporters of Proposition 79.

After listening to the advocates and studying the measures, the Register recommends that voters say no to Proposition 78 and yes to Proposition 79.

There is little question that thousands of Californians are struggling with the cost of prescription drugs, and any viable step toward making them more affordable is a positive one.

The key difference between propositions 78 and 79 is that Proposition 79 would take advantage of the huge purchasing power of the state to negotiate better prices with drug manufacturers. Those companies that choose not to negotiate with the state risk losing business to other manufacturers.

Proposition 78 does not tap the state's buying muscle, instead relying on drug companies' voluntary participation in a discount program.

Proposition 79 goes farther than 78 in other ways. It would create a panel to review drug-pricing and would make it a civil violation for drug makers to engage in price-gauging for prescription medications. While Proposition 78 allows those with incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level ($29,000 for an individual, $58,000 for a family of four) to participate, Proposition 79 would make the benefit available to those who earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty figure.

That translates into about 4 million eligible Californians under Proposition 78, and 8 million under Proposition 79.

Yahn, the advocate for Proposition 78, offers particularly strong warnings against the legal and pricing provisions of Proposition 79. She said lawyers would be the main beneficiaries from the anti-profiteering provision, and that there is no need for a new panel to provide oversight of drug pricing.

She also warned that, should Proposition 79 pass, it is more likely to be tied up in court for years than it is to offer a benefit to a citizen grappling with the high cost of prescription drugs.

Passmore argued that a voluntary program will not bring real relief to California citizens. He defended Proposition 79's larger class of eligible Californians, saying that while the poorest of the poor have access to drugs through the Medi-Cal system, it is low-income and lower-middle income seniors and families who have the hardest times making ends meet and paying for their medications.

In their debate and in the ballot arguments, the two sides focus more on tearing down straw men such as greedy lawyers or profiteering drug makers than they do laying out the ways their proposals would help the average Californian. This may be part of the strategy behind 78 -- creating an alternative measure designed to make sure a more onerous initiative does not pass.

Meanwhile, down here on the ground, the high cost of prescription drugs is a serious problem for thousands of California families. To do nothing is to extend the crisis deeper into the future.

We believe it proper that the state of California use its buying muscle to make drugs more affordable to citizens. We also believe that if the drug companies do not engage in questionable pricing schemes, they needn't worry about the price-gouging lawsuits or state oversight.

Many Californians need relief from high prescription drug costs. We urge a yes vote on Proposition 79.

San Francisco Chronicle, October 24, 2005

EDITORIAL: How to lower the cost of drugs

IN THE CENTURY-LONG history of the initiative process in California, rarely have voters faced as confusing -- or as expensive -- a contest as the one between Proposition 78 and Proposition 79 that both appear on the Nov. 8 special-election ballot.

Under both initiatives, for a modest annual fee an eligible resident would be able to buy a discount card to obtain prescription drugs at reduced prices negotiated with drug companies and pharmacies.

It is also an unequal contest. Prop. 78 is sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents all major drug companies. They're expected to pour $80 million or more into the campaign to defeat Prop. 79.

Prop. 79, in contrast, is sponsored by a number of consumer advocacy groups, labor unions and nonprofit organizations, which will spend less than $2 million on the campaign. As a result, voters will hear very little about the merits of Prop. 79 and much about its drawbacks.

After visiting with both sides, we think that Prop. 79 offers the greatest hope to bring down prescription-drug costs for the greatest number of uninsured and underinsured Californians.

At a time when drug costs are escalating, it is unacceptable that 1 in 5 of California 's residents has no prescription-drug coverage.

Some of the state's poorest residents -- those who qualify for the state and federally funded Medi-Cal program -- receive drugs from a "preferred list" of medications at deeply discounted rates, as a result of negotiations between the state and drug companies.

Better-off Californians insured through a range of health plans, including health maintenance organizations such as Kaiser Permanente, also receive drugs purchased at discounted rates.

It's only the uninsured or underinsured who must pay the full retail price of prescription drugs. For that reason, many forgo taking medically necessary drugs. According to a recent report by the Rand Corp., 2.4 million Californians would enroll in the Prop. 79 programs were it to pass, compared to 1.6 million under Prop. 78.

The most controversial feature of Prop. 79 is that if a pharmaceutical company refuses to provide significant discounts, the company's drugs might be removed from Medi-Cal's "preferred drug list." Once removed from the list, doctors could still write prescriptions for those drugs, but would be less likely to do so, resulting in losses to the drug company. If the drug were the only one in its class, however, it would not be removed from the list.

Drug company representatives say the "linkage" with the Medi-Cal program won't pass legal muster. They say they are willing to provide discounted drugs, but only through a "voluntary" program such as the one embodied in Prop. 78. But if drug companies are disposed to providing discounted drugs to uninsured Californians, we are puzzled why they need the permission of voters to do so. Why can't they begin offering those drugs voluntarily at a discounted rate tomorrow?

If they had done so, this hugely expensive initiative battle could have been avoided. The fact that they haven't supports the view that some leverage is needed to compel them to offer discounts similar to those offered through the Medi-Cal program and myriad other health plans.

Proposition 79 marks an important step toward offering prescription drugs at reasonable prices to large numbers of uninsured and underinsured Californians. We recommend a "no'' vote on Prop. 78 and a "yes'' vote on Prop. 79.

Stockton Record, Oct 13, 2005

EDITORIAL:Conflicting prescriptions

Propositions 78 and 79 are dueling initiatives in the Nov. 8 special election.

Both involve prescription drugs.

One -- 78 -- is supported by drug companies and opposed by consumer groups.

The other -- 79 -- is supported by consumer groups and opposed by drug companies.

Where you stand probably comes down to two things:

• Whether pharmaceutical corporations, which have created medical miracles but are among the world's most profitable companies, will act in the best interest of Californians or their own profitability.
• Whether you believe Proposition 78 is an honest attempt to remedy the plague of ever-increasing drug costs or whether it's simply a prescription for neutralizing Proposition 79.

The propositions are totally different.

The most important distinction is that Proposition 78 is voluntary for drug companies and includes no enforcement provisions. If executives of a company didn't like the program, they could simply ignore it.

That might sound like their right, but we're not talking tires or computers here. We're talking lifesaving, usually patented drugs.

Proposition 79 is their nemesis. They don't like it. They're spending millions to stop it.

It's easy to understand why. Proposition 79 would enforce drug discounts and not rely on voluntary price reductions that might or might not be offered by companies.

Proposition 79 would cover millions more Californians, including people with existing drug coverage that doesn't include their expenses.

Proposition 79 proposes a nine-member committee to review access to -- and pricing of -- drugs. State officials would negotiate drug company rebates. Companies that don't agree to lower prices could have their drugs removed from "preferred-status" designation by Medi-Cal, a state program for low-income residents that includes drug coverage.

Opponents of Proposition 79 argue the federal government never will extend federally mandated drug pricing of Medi-Cal system to a new Proposition 79 program.

Opponents say it will trigger an avalanche of lawsuits against the program and drug companies. Lawsuits brought by drug companies are more likely.

There's no argument the present system isn't working and needs reform. The price of drugs -- some not just needed to enhance life but to continue it -- are out of control. The most vulnerable are the least able to pay those prices.

Proposition 78 benefits drug companies. Proposition 79 benefits California residents.

Visalia Times-Delta, October 12, 2005

EDITORIAL: Yes on Proposition 79, No on Proposition 78

After the rhetoric and exaggeration has been digested, voters need to know only one thing to distinguish between Propositions 78 and 79, both of which propose a discount drug program for the indigent and elderly:

Proposition 79 serves more patients at a lower cost to the patient.

For that reason alone, we recommend voters choose Proposition 79 and reject Proposition 78.

If both measures pass on Nov. 8, the proposition that gets the most votes will go into effect.

It is still with some misgiving that we recommend a yes vote on either of these propositions, because both make the same mistake that other health-care "reform" measures have: They try to correct one part of the broken health-care system without addressing the other ailing parts. It would be a poor doctor indeed who treated only one symptom of an ailing patient with multiple conditions. Yet that is just what most of the proposals to fix the health-care system have been doing for the past several years.

We continue to hope that policy-makers in our state and national seats of power realize that the American system of health care must be overhauled top to bottom, most likely with some kind of national approach with a single-payer fiscal system and universal coverage.

That's not likely to happen, though. If one of these measures is going to be adopted, the better choice is Proposition 79.

Simply check out page 45 in the California Secretary of State's voter guide. Clearly Proposition 79 is superior to 78 in:

Patients covered: Families of four earning less than $77,000 a year as opposed to the same families earning $58,000.

Cost to the patient: A $10/year discount card as opposed to a $15/year card.

Costs of medications: Proposition 78 would only negotiate with drug manufacturers (No wonder the pharmaceutical companies prefer 78); Proposition 79 would also link the costs of drugs to the price the federal government pays under Medi-Cal. The state would be able to use its purchase power for a lower price.

The one thing that is missing from both plans is the amount drugs would cost under each, and how much money the state as well as drug patients would save. We continue to be skeptical that either measure is a panacea for the exorbitant costs of some prescription medicines. The recently reformed Medicare prescription drug provision also promised the moon and is delivering far less.

Patients, especially the elderly and indigent, will benefit some, however. Voters would help more of them by selecting Proposition 79.

San Francisco Bay Guardian, October 12, 2005

Proposition 78

Discounts on prescription drugs

NO

Proposition 79

Prescription drug discounts, state-negotiated

YES There are two separate propositions on the ballot that promise to offer low-income Californians some relief from skyrocketing pharmaceutical prices. And at first read, they seem similar: Each would set up a program enabling certain people to purchase a discount card entitling them to reduced prices on prescription drugs purchased from their local pharmacy; each program would be open to uninsured people of limited means; and each program would be administered by the government, which would negotiate discounts with pharmacies and drug companies.

But there's a big difference between Proposition 79, the result of a long community-based effort, and Proposition 78, the pharmaceutical companies' dirty little plan to block Prop. 79.

To put it simply, Prop. 79 has a good chance of working, while Prop. 78 is a big ruse.

It all comes down to the government's ability to negotiate discounts on behalf of lower-income Californians. Prop. 79 would give the government some leverage over the pharmaceutical companies because any company that refuses to offer discounts through this new program would have its products taken o ff the list of preapproved drugs offered by Medi-Cal. The accompanying threat to profits would make each pharmaceutical company far more likely to participate in the discount program.

Prop. 78, on the other hand, doesn't contain any mechanism to encourage the companies to discount their wares. Instead, it assumes drug company executives will offer price breaks out of the goodness of their hearts – an assumption that is hard to take seriously.

The Prop. 78 program would only be open to half as many Californians as the Prop. 79 one, but that's basically a moot point, since it would be unlikely to offer much in the way of discounts anyway.

Also, Prop. 79 would make it explicitly illegal for pharmaceutical companies to demand "prices or terms that lead to any unjust and unreasonable price." Prop. 78 contains no such language.

Funded by more than $70 million in campaign cash from Big Pharma so far, the No on 79-Yes on 78 campaign is telling voters that consumer- and union-backed Prop. 79 will reduce access to specific drugs for patients on Medi-Cal. In reality, doctors could prescribe any drug – they would just have to comply with the rules that are currently in place for drugs that aren't preapproved by Medi-Cal.

The ads are confusing, but the bottom line is simple: No on 78, yes on 79.

La Opinion

Editorial: Proposición 79 es buena medicina

Las proposiciones 78 y 79 son dos iniciativas opuestas para solucionar un gran problema: el costoso acceso a las medicinas recetadas. Este es un choque de intereses claramente definidos entre la industria farmacéutica y los defensores de los consumidores. Las dos medidas facilitan los medicamentos en relación al sistema actual. Sin embargo, a la hora de los detalles y de las decisiones una defiende a la industria farmacéutica mientras que la otra a los pacientes. ¡Por eso Vote NO en la Proposición 78! ¡En cambio debe ser ¡Sí a la Proposición 79!

La Proposición 78 establece descuentos para las personas por debajo del 300% del nivel federal de pobreza. El problema de esta medida es que no otorga al gobierno ninguna ventaja en las negociaciones con las empresas farmacéuticas para conseguir precios bajos. Al mismo tiempo, da la posibilidad a la industria de invalidar el nuevo sistema al negarse a participar en él. Por supuesto, esta iniciativa hace opcional la participación del sistema de las empresas de medicinas.

La Proposición 79, por su lado, otorga una rebaja mayor en el descuento para los beneficiarios y cubre una mayor cantidad de personas que la Proposición 78. También la iniciativa crea un sistema nuevo ligado al actual programa de MediCal para dar al gobierno un mayor poder de negociación con las farmacéuticas y obtener mejores precios para los consumidores. Un panel integrado por una variedad de intereses en juego vigjlará el proceso y se permitirán demandas contra las empresas que cobren “precios inconcebibles” por sus remedios.

La industria farmacéutica esta gastando 80 millones de dólares en una intensa campaña publicitaria para aprobar su iniciativa y derrotar a la Proposición 79. En ella se muestran todas de “peligros” posibles, desde los burócratas gubernamentales hasta los abogados litigantes aunque todo esto no cambia nada. La mayor amenaza hoy surge de la misma industria farmacéutica que en el pasado no ha temido realizar aumentos inconcebibles en medicinas vitales para males como el VIH/sida y que seguramente recurrirá a los tribunales si se aprueba la Proposición 79.

Entre estas dos iniciativas electorales no cabe duda cual es la más amplia y la que esta elaborada con el consumidor en mente. No se deje llevar por el bombardeo de propaganda de la industria farmacéutica. ¡Vote Sí en la Proposición 79 y rechace la Proposición 78!

La Prensa – San Diego , October 14, 2005

Editorial: Proposition 78: Discounts on Prescription Drugs

Should the state adopt a new state drug discount program to reduce the costs of prescription drugs for Californians at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level?

Establishes discount prescription drug program for certain low- and moderate-income Californians. Individuals who earn below 300% of the Federal Poverty level about $29,000 per year or under $58,000 for a family of four.. Authorizes Department of Health Services to contract with participating pharmacies for discounts and with participating drug manufacturers for rebates. Currently MediCal provides prescription services for low income children and adults. For those not covered by MediCal the State provides prescription drugs under the Healthy Families Program for low income and moderate income families who do not qualify for Medi-Cal.

Prop 78 is a Proposition bought and paid for by the Drug Lobbies to defeat Prop 79 a solution put for by consumer, health and senior groups. Prop 78 is a smoke screen supported by millions of dollars by the makers of drugs who want to control who gets their drugs, how much you will pay for them and the State is prohibited from defending the citizens who can not afford the outrageous prices that the Drug industry is trying to scam off the citizens.

La Prensa San Diego Recommends a NO Vote on 78!!

Proposition 79: Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates

Should the state of California create a new prescription drug discount program for residents at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and change state law to make it illegal to engage in profiteering from the sale of prescription drugs!

Provides drug discounts to low income Californians who have income that falls below 400 percent of the Federal Poverty level (up to $38,000 for an individual and up to $77,000 year for a family of four.) Prohibits Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing Medicaid best price.

Propositions 79, provides a drug discount program, but from different perspective. Proposition 78 is an initiative that was introduced reflects the drug companies’ watered-down response in response to Prop. 79. Prop 78 doesn’t provide any significant savings and is based on a voluntary compliance by the pharmacies and provides significant loop holes where if certain requirements are not met they could close the program without any consideration of the impact that it would have on the poor and unemployed. The Corporate Board of Directors don’t care about the patients…The bottom line is their main concern. Their plan doesn’t provide funding to ensure the success of the program. This proposition does not even warrant consideration.

If the consumer groups want to have an impact on the health and affordability of health care they should instead take a look at the huge number of uninsured individuals in the state and work with the legislatures to find a solution to ensure that all individuals in the State can afford health insurance. If they do this the cost of drugs becomes a mute point.

La Prensa San Diego Urges You to Vote YES on Prop. 79

LA Weekly, October 21, 2005

Proposition 78: Prescription drug discounts, pharmaceutical industry version. No
Hey! This would allow drug companies to give some people discounts on costly prescription drugs, if they felt like it! That would be so very nice of them! The only purpose of this proposition is to cancel more generous Proposition 79.

Proposition 79: Prescription drug ­discounts, consumer version. Yes
Like 78, this one gives California the clout to negotiate deep drug discounts with the big pharmaceutical companies. The difference is that this one reaches far more low-income people who need prescription drugs. It also carries an enforcement stick that in effect locks drug companies out of the discount program if they don’t come through with the best prices

The Black Voice News, October 14, 2005

Proposition 78 is sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies and what they are proposing has some troubling humps for the consumers to jump. First to qualify your income must be 300% below the poverty level as though the poverty level isn’t low enough. If you currently get medication from a private source and lost that coverage it would take you three months to qualify for 78 benefits. o­nly certain pharmacies would be allowed to participate in the program. We know what happens in our neighborhoods, they get neglected. Next is the rebate requirement for discount pricing. How many times have you sent in a rebate card for something you purchased at a store? Now I’m sure it will be different for the state but rebates are extra paperwork for someone to hide behind. The o­nly provision I like about this proposition is the outreach efforts to educate the consumer and that is not enough for me to support. Plus it is part of the other proposition. Vote No o­n 78.

Proposition 79 is sponsored by several consumer groups and offers some things that might give protection to consumers. There are some similarities in 79 and 78 but they differ in three areas: assistance, advisory board and filing lawsuits. Prop. 79 would require discount programs for certain businesses and labor entities. It would also create a nine member panel to review the access to pricing of drugs and make it a civil violation for a drug maker to engage in profiting from the sale of drugs. With my muscle disease I was taking a pill that costs $124.00 each and had to take two each day. This was in addition to other required medication. You do the math. Currently they charge whatever the market will bear even if the consumer has to go without food. This proposition also has an outreach component. Vote Yes o­n 79.

Monterey County Weekly

These two propositions will compete at the polls. Because they deal with the same issue—prescription drug costs—only one will become law.

Prop 78 is sponsored by Big Pharma—the drug companies. It was placed on the ballot to defeat Prop 79, a bill that would force Big Pharma to sell drugs to the state at a discounted rate.

California spends about $4 billion on prescription drugs every year. All of these prescriptions are purchased one at a time by uninsured Californians on Medi-Cal.

But even though it spends all that money, the state does not receive a bulk-purchase markdown. We pay retail.

Health-care plans like Blue Cross, as well as other and government agencies, buy their prescription drugs at prices they negotiate with the drug companies—way below retail. But an uninsured Californian, walking into a pharmacy, pays the sticker price, which is then picked up by Medi-Cal.

Prop 78 would ultimately force drug companies to discount drugs sold to uninsured Californians. Prop 79 would encourage the drug companies (but not force them) to do the same.

We’re talking about a lot of money here. The drug companies can absorb the loss better than the state can. Vote no on 78 and yes on 79.

Marin Pacific Sun

Propositions 78 and 79
Prescription Drug Cost Relief.

The high cost of prescription drugs has been a problem and a political issue for years. Both of these initiatives purport to reduce those costs for particularly vulnerable populations. Both create new structures in state government to administer their programs. Proposition 79 is supported by a long list of consumer groups, unions, seniors’ organizations and the League of Women Voters. Proposition 78 is funded and supported by large drug companies and business organizations. According to an Associated Press analysis, Proposition 79 would cover about 10 million people, while Proposition 78 would cover about five million and depend on voluntary participation by drug companies. Proposition 79 appears to offer broader, more dependable relief.

The Sun recommends a NO vote on 78 and a YES vote on 79

Click on the links below to learn more about Prop 79:

Full text of Prop. 79
Prop. 79 fact sheet
Comparison of Prop. 78 and Prop. 79
Myths and Facts About Prop 79
Watch "The Constant Gouger" trailer
Prop. 79 and 78 downloadable material