(Illustration by Joe Dworetzky/Bay City News)

Dear Editor:

I am the Medical Director at Long Valley Health Center in Laytonville, a nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Center that has served North-Central Mendocino County since 1978. Every day I see what it means when patients fall through the cracks — and what becomes possible when they don’t. Proposition 44 would make it much harder to catch them.

Let me tell you about one of our patients — I’ll call her Renee.

Renee is 36 years old. She has had Type 1 diabetes since she was three. By the time she came to us, that disease had ravaged her kidneys — she was driving to Ukiah three days a week for dialysis, battling addiction, with no income, no stable housing, and dangerously uncontrolled glucose levels. She was scared, overwhelmed, and feeling almost entirely alone.

Our Enhanced Care Management team surrounded her. Her caseworker read and re-read every eligibility requirement to help navigate her onto the kidney-pancreas transplant list. Another team member helped her enroll in SSI benefits, giving her income for the first time. Our nurses and her provider answered every question about labs, medications, and following steps. They had hard, honest conversations with Renee about sobriety, about vaping, about what was at stake if she couldn’t stop. Our whole clinic was all hands on deck.

And Renee showed up too. That is what whole-person care looks like. Not one hero — a whole team refusing to let someone fall.

Proposition 44 would defund exactly that kind of care.

Prop 44 would impose strict new spending requirements on nonprofit community health centers, with penalties for noncompliance. Supporters call it accountability. Independent economists at the Berkeley Research Group found that it would cut $1.7 billion from community health centers and clinics in its first year alone. 88% of clinics statewide would face negative operating margins. Clinics caring for more than 11 million patients are at significant risk of having to cut services or shut down entirely.

The front of the Long Valley Health Clinic building in Laytonville, Calif., in the fall of 2025. (Long Valley Health Clinic via Bay City News)

This poorly written measure excludes critical services from its spending requirements — making them the first targets for cuts: care coordinators, enrollment navigators, translation services, transportation, telemedicine, quality improvement programs, and the billing and IT staff who keep operations running. At community clinics like ours, none of these are administrative luxuries. They are how we keep Renee — and 3,023 patients like her — connected to care.

For rural communities, community health centers are often the only source of care for hundreds of miles. When clinics cut services or close, patients don’t simply find another doctor. They go to emergency rooms — or they go without. That costs everyone more, and it falls hardest on those who can least afford it. Prop 44 would also eliminate funding for hundreds of school-based health clinics statewide, cutting primary care for tens of thousands of California children.

It is also worth knowing why this measure exists at all. According to the California Primary Care Association, Prop 44 is not a good-faith accountability effort — it is a power play by special interests using the ballot initiative process to gain political leverage over community health centers in contract negotiations. Patients are being used as pawns. This is not accountability; this is coercion.

What Prop 44 ignores is that community health centers are already among the most heavily regulated healthcare entities in the state, subject to strict federal and state audits. We are nonprofits by law — our resources go to patient care, not shareholders. A majority of our board of directors must be our own patients.

Opposition to Prop 44 is broad and has nonpartisan support: the California Medical Association, California Academy of Family Physicians, Planned Parenthood, California Teachers Association, California Hospital Association, California Behavioral Health Association, California Black Health Network, and the American College of Emergency Physicians, among many others. When doctors, nurses, teachers, and patient advocates all agree, it is worth listening.

Renee’s story is not unique. It is happening in exam rooms, on phone calls, and in parking lots across Mendocino County right now. Proposition 44 would make stories like hers less likely to have a good ending.

I urge Mendocino County voters to learn more at NoProp44.com and to vote No on Proposition 44. Our neighbors, family, and friends deserve better.

Dr. Jodi Parungao

Medical Director, Long Valley Health Center

Laytonville

Join the Conversation

7 Comments

  1. Thank you for bringing that to our attention because honestly I had no idea what prop 44 was. It has not been advertised any that I have ever seen or heard. It needs to be taken to Facebook and the community calendars and things because we need more people aware of what’s going on. Thank you again

  2. Restrictions on other essential services required to run a healthy clinic not mentioned in this letter that will be effected by Prop 44 are the maintenance and janitorial services. It is not just administrations services that will be severly cut if this bill passes. Please Vote No on Prop 44.

  3. What a bunch of scare tactics. If you want to know what prop 44 does then read it. It’s actually quite short and simple. Nothing in it relates to what this Dr. writes above. It doesn’t put a limit on patient spending or even say what is considered patient spending. It’s only intent is to limit the amount paid to executives to 10% of clinic income. Most clinics are responsible to their patients and already fall within this ratio, but many do not. Opponents are crying about cuts in services this will cause, but the real problem is greedy CEO’s and CFO’s. Everyone of the opposition statements on the ballot are from healthcare CEO’s, that should tell you something right there. Open your eyes people, do your own research. Bad laws get passed only because of peoples apathy. Remember, this is a letter to the editor, it’s not a news story, nothing in it has to proven truth. It’s all fear mongering to protect the administrators positions and they think you are a chump.

  4. I support the goal of more money reaching patients, but I am skeptical of a fixed 90% spending mandate because healthcare delivery requires significant infrastructure outside the exam room, such as EHR and cybersecurity systems, quality reporting, revenue-cycle management, compliance with state and federal regulations, medical directors and physician leadership, interpreter services, clinic infrastructure and staff training and recruitment. Many safety-net clinics already operate on very thin margins. If a clinic is fined for not meeting an accounting metric, that money ultimately comes out of resources that could have been used for staffing or patient services.

  5. John, you claim that opponents to Prop 44 haven’t read the text. Well, I tried to wade through just the first page, and it is so minutely complex and self-contradictory that I am probably going to vote against it for that reason alone.

    In brief, the added amount of time and money the state will spend on designing the new guidelines, creating duplicative reporting systems, identifying and justifying exceptions and then enforcing penalties on affected clinics would cost tens of millions of tax payers’ dollars per year in the extra work done by the Attorney General’s office and related agencies alone. (This estimate comes from the CA Voters Guide’s own objective analysis, based on legal and financial facts.)

    This mess doesn’t even account for the extra costs the state will have to take on to make up for the closures of clinics because they can’t pay the penalties for exceeding the arbitrary, picayune 10% administrative spending limit.

    Please note: Nonprofit safety net clinics in CA already report their revenues and expenses to both the federal government and the state. The data show that they currently report spending an average of about 80 percent of their revenue on providing direct health care services. No doubt there are greedy, corrupt CEOs and CFOs in larger hospital systems with huge budgets, but small clinics like this, in rural and indigent communities like ours, do not have the advantage of the many grants and prodigious fundraising programs of large cities. Their services are crucial, especially for the low-income and uninsured people who can’t even afford transportation to medical services in other towns. As it is, patients everywhere often have to wait months to see a provider, now scarcer than ever after recent cuts in Medi-cal. By the way, I looked for the supporters of this initiative, and according to the Voters Guide, none were submitted.

    Our health system is already in crisis. This initiative will only make it worse.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *