DaVita Rises After California Rejects Dialysis-Clinic Proposition

Shares of kidney-care provider DaVita rose after California voters rejected a proposed regulation aimed at the state's dialysis clinics.
Author:
Publish date:

Shares of kidney-care provider DaVita  (DVA) - Get Report rose after voters in California rejected a ballot measure to require a doctor or highly trained nurse at each of the 600 dialysis clinics in the state.

Shares of the Denver company at last check rose 4.6% to $97.20.

The state's Proposition 23 received 37% favorable votes, more than a third of the 9 million votes tallied in California

The industry spent more than $105 million to oppose the proposition.

Defenders argued that a doctor was needed at clinics whenever the state’s 80,000 dialysis patients were being treated to ensure they received quality care. 

Opponents, financed by dialysis clinic companies, said the measure would have created a financial burden that could lead some clinics to close.

On Nov. 12, after vote counting is complete and the results have been certified, companies like DaVita and the state of California must update a federal judge about the final status, Bloomberg reported.

Separately, Fresenius Medical Care Orange County, DaVita and U.S. Renal Care of Plano, Texas, have filed a lawsuit to block a recently enacted California law that the plaintiffs say will harm dialysis patients. Bloomberg cited the lawsuit.

Assembly Bill 290 "imposes burdensome and punitive regulations on persons suffering from a specific life-threatening illness, their medical providers, and a leading national charity that has long helped these patients secure health care needed to keep them alive," the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in California, says.

“Doctors, patients’ organizations, and countless other groups have warned that AB 290 will be a catastrophe for patients -- particularly the low-income, minority patients that are disproportionately affected by [end-stage renal disease] -- by threatening their ability to receive and afford life-saving treatment at dialysis clinics in California, including those operated by Plaintiffs,” the suit adds.