How state healthcare initiatives fared on Election Day

Besides the presidential election’s ramifications on the healthcare industry, there were several important ballot initiatives affecting health policy across the country. 

Single-payer fails in Colorado

Colorado went to Democrat Hillary Clinton over President-elect Donald Trump, but a measure to create a single-payer, universal healthcare system in the state came nowhere close to passing. Nearly 80 percent of voters opposed the measure, with the Denver Post reporting even the Democratic stronghold of the state’s capital and largest city was against it by a more than two-to-one margin.

Despite receiving high profile support from former Democratic presidential candidate, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, the measure was opposed by the state’s Democratic governor as well as insurance companies and health systems.

"This was a huge validation for what we've be saying about the initiative being very poorly drafted," said Sean Duffy, spokesman for opposition group Coloradans for Coloradans.

Colorado passes aid-in-dying

A separate ballot initiative did succeed in Colorado, allowing any “mentally capable” patient above the age of 18 with a terminal illness and six months or less to live to voluntarily take a lethal dose of sleeping medication.

The diagnosis of the terminal illness and a patient’s life expectancy would have to be confirmed by two physicians. Patients with Alzheimer’s or dementia wouldn’t be eligible due to the mental capability requirement.

Its passage makes Colorado the sixth state to legalize “aid-in-dying” following Oregon, California, Montana, Vermont and Washington.

Calif. drug pricing measure defeated

Voters in California voted against a ballot measure to tie state agency spending on prescription drug to rates paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

The measure failed with about 53 percent of voters in opposition. The credit for its defeat may go to the pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer, which, according to Reuters, spent nearly $106 million compared to the $17 million spent supporting the measure.

“They wanted to draw a line in the sand,” said Stuart Schweitzer, professor of health policy and management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

Pharma companies have been very active against other drug price measures in California this year, including a failed attempt to require companies to justify price hikes above 25 percent.