Other Voices: Proposition 3 plea sincere

In your Sept. 27 editorial on the Children's Hospital Bond Act (Proposition 3), you acknowledged, "We believe their plea is sincere. We believe they mean to help." As the president and CEO of the California Children's Hospital Association, I can assure you our plea is sincere, and we absolutely mean to do everything we can to help the children who count on us for care. Proposition 3 is a fiscally responsible, essential proposal that lets California voters make children's health a priority.

Your editorial asserts that "20 percent of the money (from Proposition 3) would be allocated to acute, rather than children's services." This is simply not correct. Not a penny from Proposition 3 can be spent on anything but construction or equipment only at a children's hospital. These funds cannot be raided or used for other purposes.

The Appeal-Democrat makes an excellent point about the risks of using the ballot to set budget priorities rather than looking to the Legislature. In fact, we went to the Legislature last year, and the Assembly passed a bill to put the Children's Hospital Bond Act on the ballot with the 2⁄3 bi-partisan support it needed. Unfortunately, the bill got caught up in the Senate during the debate on health care reform. Because all children's hospitals are operating at or near capacity, we couldn't wait for the Legislature to sort through their differences.

In 2004, more than 58 percent of California voters voted "yes" on Proposition 61. But the capital needs of children's hospitals far exceed the funding available from Proposition 61. By the end of this year, nearly 70 percent of the funds will have been awarded, and all have been planned for.

Children's hospitals are facing daunting challenges. A million times each year, children come to us for care. Many of them are transferred from other hospitals that don't have the resources to properly treat the most seriously ill and injured kids. The number of children needing care is growing, but the space and equipment to treat them are not.

Business and community leaders agree that we must help these premier regional institutions. A supporter of Proposition 3, California Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Allan Zaremberg, said it well: "Expanding and improving children's hospitals are an important health care priority. Without continued investments in medical equipment and facilities, California's health care system will not be prepared to meet the needs of our expanding population. The children served by these hospitals are in need of specialized services and the hospitals that treat them do so without regard to a family's ability to pay. This measure will expand capacity and bring hope to critically ill children and their families."

Suggestions that children's hospitals rely on private funding for support miss this critical point: private funding alone is not enough. Children's hospitals are very fortunate to have generous philanthropic support, but private giving cannot meet all the needs. Proposition 3 is a public-private partnership that fosters both public funding and private philanthropy to save lives.

Like the Appeal-Democrat, people often express their admiration for children's hospitals and their respect for the life-saving work done by our physicians and nurses. Please make this admiration meaningful by voting "Yes" on Proposition 3. Join former Governor Pete Wilson, the California Chamber of Commerce, the State PTA, the League of Women Voters and many other leaders who have endorsed Proposition 3 by voting Yes on Proposition 3.

Diana S. Dooley is president and CE0 of the California Children's Hospital Association.