CB CalBallot

Proposition 44: Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% Of Revenue on Program Services. Initiative Statute.

California Statewide • 2026

Upcoming

Official description - California Secretary of State

Imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on “program services” advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services.

Official source: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/44/index.htm

Source captured 2026-10-08.

What your vote means

A YES vote

Certain private nonprofit health care clinics would have to spend at least 90 percent of their revenue each year on providing health care services.

A NO vote

The new requirement on health care clinic spending would not go into effect.

Official voter guide · source captured 2026-10-08. Read the official overview

Official title and summary
  • Imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on “program services” advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services. Department of Public Health may waive spending requirements in exceptional circumstances.
  • Authorizes Attorney General to publish guidance defining qualifying expenditures.
  • Monetary penalties may be refunded if centers become compliant within five years.
  • Authorizes criminal charges for false reports or artificially increasing spending ratio.

Prepared by the Attorney General. Read the official title and summary

Official documents

Research

Fiscal impact

Legislative Analyst’s estimate, published in the official voter guide. Read the complete analysis

Background — Legislative Analyst

Safety Net Clinics Serve Low-Income People. Clinics are places where people can access certain health care services, such as doctor’s visits. Many clinics are considered “safety net,” as they mainly serve low-income and uninsured people. The care they provide is often low cost or free to patients. There are about 2,000 safety net clinics in California. Most are private nonprofits, and the rest are run by public entities (such as counties).

Clinics Spend Most of Their Revenue on Health Care Services. Clinics spend most of their revenue on providing health care to patients. They also have other expenses, such as administrative costs. Each year, private nonprofit safety net clinics in California report their revenues and expenses to the federal government and the state. These clinics currently report spending an average of about 80 percent of their revenue on providing health care services, though the percent varies across clinics.

Figures and full document formatting are available in the official analysis.

Proposal — Legislative Analyst

Sets Minimum Spending on Health Care at Private Nonprofit Safety Net Clinics. Proposition 44 requires private nonprofit safety net clinics to spend at least 90 percent of their total revenue each year on providing health care services. This means that spending on other expenses, such as administrative costs, would be limited to no more than 10 percent of revenue. The California Attorney General would define in more detail which kinds of expenses are related to providing health care services, and which are other expenses, using existing reports to the federal government as a starting point. Affected clinics could ask the state for a temporary waiver of the requirements in some cases.

Creates Penalty for Falling Short of Minimum. Proposition 44 requires affected clinics to pay a penalty to the state if they fall short of the new health care spending minimum. The penalty would equal the amount of spending needed to reach the 90 percent minimum. Clinics could get their money back if they comply with the spending requirements within five years. If clinics do not comply within five years, the state would keep the money and spend it on clinic workforce programs.

Figures and full document formatting are available in the official analysis.

Fiscal Effects — Legislative Analyst

Creates State Enforcement Costs. Under Proposition 44, the state would enforce the new requirements on private nonprofit safety net clinics. This includes reviewing financial reports and investigating affected entities. State enforcement costs would be in the low tens of millions of dollars per year. The proposition directs the state to cover the costs by charging fees on affected clinics.

Could Have Other Uncertain Costs. Proposition 44 could create other costs for the state and local governments. These costs are uncertain. They depend on (1) how the state Attorney General would define health care-related expenses and (2) whether affected clinics would meet the spending minimum. For example, affected clinics might spend more on direct health care services to comply with the requirement, which could increase state costs. This is because some of these services would be for patients in Medi-Cal, the state’s program that provides health care coverage for low-income Californians. Some clinics that could not meet the minimum spending requirement might close instead. This would create other uncertain effects on state and local costs.

Figures and full document formatting are available in the official analysis.

Arguments in the voter guide

These are the authors’ advocacy statements, not impartial analysis or CalBallot endorsements. Official agencies have not checked these arguments for accuracy.

Argument for

Prop. 44 holds community clinics and their executives accountable by requiring that 90% of clinic revenue be spent on clinics’ charitable mission: patient care and services that make care possible. It increases transparency, reduces wasteful executive spending, and ensures healthcare dollars go where they belong: caring for Californians in need.

Argument against

Prop. 44 is a dangerous measure that will shut down hundreds of community health clinics and eliminate vital patient services for millions of Californians. American Academy of Pediatrics CA, California Medical Association, California Academy of Family Physicians, California School Nurses Organization, doctors, nurses and patients urge NO on 44! www.NOProp44.com

Read the full arguments, authors and rebuttals

Supporters and opponents listed in the guide

Supporters

  • None submitted

Opponents

  • American Academy of Pediatrics CA
  • CA School Nurses Org
  • CA Academy of Family Physicians
  • CA Medical Assoc.

These are the submitted lists in the official overview, not exhaustive lists of endorsements. “None submitted” does not mean no opposition exists.

Official voter guide · source captured 2026-10-08. Read the official overview

Campaign finance

2026 reported campaign contributions

SOS-reported contributions to primarily formed committees. These are contributions, not spending. Some committees work on several measures or transfer money to other committees; do not add these figures across measures or treat them as unique donor dollars.

In support

$10,781,565

Reported through 2026-10-06 · 1 committee(s)

In opposition

$21,609,280

Reported through 2026-10-06 · 1 committee(s)

SOS contribution totals and reporting scope · captured 2026-10-08.

Supporting committees (1)
Opposing committees (1)

Top contributors by committee

FPPC list updated 2026-10-06. These lists cover qualifying committees, not every donor or all campaign money. They are not a breakdown of the SOS totals above: the sources have different reporting coverage, and even one FPPC donor amount can exceed a displayed SOS total. An asterisk (*) marks money for a committee involved in multiple measures; it cannot be allocated to this measure alone. Lists below are not added together.

Supporting: Californians for Responsible Healthcare, Sponsored by Service Employees International Union - United Healthcare Workers West, #1483073
SEIU United Health Care Workers West Political Issues Committee CA$16,929,633.88*
Opposing: Protect Patients: Stop the Attack on Community Health Centers and Clinics, sponsored by California Primary Care Association Advocates, #1484266
Wellspace Health CA$1,500,000
San Ysidro Health CA$1,005,138.57
Innercare CA$1,000,000

Open the FPPC lists and methodology

This is a reporting snapshot. A contribution timeline, donor concentration and sector breakdown have not been calculated for these 2026 records. Earlier elections’ receipt totals use CalBallot’s separate historical finance dataset.

Open in the CalBallot explorer →