Proposition 79 -- recommend voting "yes"
This proposition competes with Proposition 78, proposing an alternate approach to reducing prescription medication costs. To begin with, the qualifications for this proposition are much more inclusive, allowing pariticipation by state residents at up to 400% of the poverty line who do not have Medi-Cal or Healthy Families coverage, or any residents who have medical expenses equal to 5% or more of their income.
The negotiations would not be benchmarked to prices that exclude government-negotiated rates, which means that the full power of government agencies would theoretically combine to push drug prices down. The annual fee would be $10 and no advertising of any kind would be allowed in outreach literature.
Two completely novel elements are a regulatory commission and outlawing of price profiteering. The regulatory commission would be constructed from an eclectic set of people not associated with the pharmaceutical industry and would be charged with reviewing access to and pricing of prescription drugs. The proposition rather vaguely outlaws illegal profiteering, allowing the attorney general or any interested citizen to take up a case against a pharmaceutical company. This last part is the big sticking point of the legislation, but as the backers point out, pharmaceutical companies already press their own cases heavily in the court system.
Overall, I go with a "yes" recommendation on this, with my primary opposing concern being the potential for unnecessary civil cases being allowed by the vague definition of profiteering. As with all propositions, there is a severability clause, so it may be that this section could be ruled out as unenforceable or too vague without invalidating the remainder of the legislation.
Previously:
Prop 78: No
Prop 77: No
Prop 76: No
Prop 75: No
Prop 74: No
Prop 73: No