When it comes to campaign contributions, the health care industry has always been a big player in Sacramento, giving millions of dollars to legislators each session. The latest two-year session that wrapped up three weeks ago was no exception, with health care interests giving nearly $3.6 million.

But relatively few of those dollars ended up in the coffers of the legislators serving on crucial health policy committees. By comparison, members of other committees, such as those regulating gaming interests, have received much more in political contributions. And in today’s money-driven political climate, that makes the Assembly and Senate health policy committees less-than-plum choices for legislators, despite the huge impact these panels have on the health care that Californians receive. “The number of lawmakers who are interested in serving on health care committees is quite small,” said former state Assemblyman Burt Margolin, who now works at the L.A. law firm of Berliner, Candon & Jaimison. “They know that a lot of the work, especially this year, deals with the safety-net health issues (involving the poor), which don’t have a large, well-heeled constituency.”

So who has been receiving the bulk of health care contribution dollars? Much of the money especially from health maintenance organizations and insurance companies has gone to key Republican legislative leaders and members of the fiscal appropriations committees in both houses. “The biggest HMO contributions go to the Republicans, who are in positions either as legislative leaders or members of the appropriations committees to bottle up bills,” said Jamie Court, spokesman for Consumers for Quality Care, a consumer health care watchdog and lobbying group. Court and other health care lobbyists point out that the HMOs put their dollars into play to stop reforms, hence the emphasis on finding legislators with the power to block bills, especially party leaders and members of the rules and appropriations committees. And, they note, health insurance companies have long tended to side with Republicans.

Big difference in donations

For example, during the most recent 1998 election cycle, former Senate Republican Caucus Leader and later Senate Republican Leader Ross Johnson, R-Irvine, received $287,000 from the insurance industry, a good portion of which came from health insurers. Another $66,000 came from other health professionals, according to figures compiled from campaign filings by Washington, D.C.-based Center For Responsive Politics. Johnson has not served on any health policy committees. But during that same time period, Glendale Democrat Scott Wildman, who served on the Assembly Health Committee, received a mere $3,750 from insurance companies and $15,000 from other health professionals. Most of Wildman’s contributions came from public-sector unions ($87,000) and trial lawyers ($36,000); while not directly health-related, both of these groups do seek to influence some health care legislation. By comparison, consider what Tony Cardenas, D-Panorama City, received as a member of the Government Organization Committee, which oversees gaming and casino issues. He took in more than $400,000 from the state’s Native American tribes during the 1998 election cycle, as those tribes sought state permission to set up gambling casinos.

Tough decision

With that kind of money flowing to members of other committees, it’s no wonder that health committees are not considered plum assignments at least from a fund-raising perspective. “For a lot of the newly elected officials, the question is, ‘Do you choose (to sign up for) the health policy committee to learn and develop, gain expertise and hopefully make a contribution? Or do you choose other committees that are either politically more important or financially more important?” said Asemblyman Gil Cedillo, recently chosen by Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg to sit on the Assembly Health Committee. What’s more, Margolin, Cedillo and other legislators point out that health care is an incredibly complex area that can take years to master. In an environment dominated by the musical chairs of term limits, this presents freshman legislators with an extremely steep learning curve.

The situation is likely to get more extreme this year. That’s because after last year’s HMO reforms, the focus on health care has moved away from the HMOs which are big contributors and toward expanding coverage for the uninsured. This is one of the more complex policy problems, involving the interplay of federal, state and local funding mechanisms; however, it offers little in the way of campaign contributions.