Category: health care

More Let Me Outta Here Re: Pension Initiative

I want out!

Yours truly has been posting about the recently filed public pension (and retiree health care) initiative which covers UC.  UC needs a strategy including first attempting to see if the sponsors will amend it or file a revised version that omits UC.  This is a political battle it would be best to avoid if possible.

The initiative has the potential to become a “symbol” of intergenerational conflict as a recent article in calpensions.com points out.  Once things become symbols of something that goes beyond the issue at end – think “ObamaCare” – the pros and cons get lost.

From the calpensions.com article – which starts about the pension initiative itself, but then goes on:

…Last week, the opinion pages of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal both had articles about a “legendary investor” who has been touring college campuses to urge students to mobilize against what one of the writers called “generational theft.”  Stanley Druckenmiller, 60, a retired hedge fund founder said to be worth $2.9 billion, often was joined by Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem’s Children Zone in appearances at Stanford, Berkeley, USC and other campuses…

Full article at http://calpensions.com/2013/10/21/initiative-shows-how-young-pay-pensions-of-old/

Health Plan Change Worries at UC

If he’s worried now, wait ’til he gets his open enrollment package.

Chronicle of Higher Ed takes note of UC employee concerns about changes in the UC health plans:

The University of California is overhauling its systemwide health-insurance plans to save on costs and better align with the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, but some employees are angry over indications that they’ll be paying more just to keep their existing level of service. System officials say that the changes are needed to avoid looming cost increases and that, in most cases, employees who pick the plan that is right for them will end up saving money and getting better service…

The full story is at http://chronicle.com/article/Changes-in-U-of-Californias/142223/

It might be noted that the article doesn’t touch on out-of-state retirees who have been shunted to an outside consultant to advise them about exchange plans available in their states.  UC will make a contribution to the premiums for what they choose but the plans available will vary from location to location and the quality of the advice they will get at this point is unclear.

Coming attraction

Apparently, we’re soon to be in the picture business.  From the UCLA Newsroom:  

The UCLA Health System and the Motion Picture and Television Fund have signed a letter of intent that would bring MPTF’s six outpatient health centers under the UCLA umbrella. This partnership between two of Los Angeles’ iconic institutions will mean that entertainment industry members and their families can continue to get health care at MPTF facilities, with the added advantage of being able to access UCLA’s world-renowned specialty care and inpatient services… After completing a definitive agreement and securing board approval, the MPTF and UCLA plan to integrate the two operations in late spring 2014…

I guess we just oughta be in pictures:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BupLKNFRjm4?feature=player_detailpage]

UC Health Union Says It Will Take Strike Vote

Union Demonstration against imposed terms, July 26, 2013

First, some legalities and background: Last summer, UC declared an impasse in its negotiations with AFSCME 3299, the union that held a two-day strike in the spring.  Under state law governing collective bargaining (a statute for UC and CSU known as HEERA), once an impasse exists, an employer can unilaterally impose terms and conditions.  Note that the determination of an impasse can be fuzzy.  In this case, the union filed unfair labor practice charges against UC in connection with the dispute and strike. The charges involve interrogation of particular employees about their stance – which might be viewed as illegal coercion since employees have a right to strike and act collectively.  The charges also cite statements by UC officials suggesting that discipline could be imposed for strike participation.  All these allegation have yet to be reviewed by the Public Employment Relations Board, i.e., there has been no final decision.  But the Board did issue a complaint – which means that the charges were not found in an initial review to be without merit.  Were PERB to conclude that unfair labor practices did occur, the university’s position that an impasse had been reached might unravel, as would its imposition of terms and conditions.

You can find the PERB complaint at:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/131008-PERB-COMPLAINT-9-12-13-UPC-SF-CE-1033-H.pdf

One of the items the union is protesting is the changes in the UC pension plan that the Regents decided upon in 2010.  Below is an excerpt from the Sacramento Bee:

The bare-knuckles contract brawl between the University of California and one of its larger unions has entered the next round, with an announcement Tuesday that AFSCME Local 3299 is planning to take a strike vote at the end of this month.  The union represents some 22,000 employees who provide staff support and medical services at UC hospitals. Contract talks have been deadlocked for more than a year.AFSCME officials have said they are pressing for changes to policies that waste public money and put public health at risk. The university counters that AFSCME’s concerns are a smokescreen to hide its real agenda to curtail pension changes that other unions have already accepted.  …AFSCME’s move comes after the Public Employees Relations Board last month charged the UC system with intimidating employees who participated in another strike last summer… 

Napolitano is planning to meet with AFSCME leaders soon… as part of her effort to meet various UC constituencies as she learns her new job, but “not to collectively bargain.”

[Editorial note from yours truly: We seem to be in a season in which presidents announce they don’t negotiate.]

Full story at http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/10/uc-system-union-to-asks-members-for-strike-authorization.html

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/10/uc-system-union-to-asks-members-for-strike-authorization.html#storylink=cpy

Everett: Where are you?

Everett Dirksen was the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate back in the day who is often quoted as saying (about the federal budget), “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.”  [I know; nobody can actually point to a source for where he supposedly said it.]

We noted in a post yesterday about a plan for a $50 million football facility.  Today’s Daily Bruin has a story about the groundbreaking for a new $120 million medical center teaching building about which the Regents raised some questions but eventually rubber stamped, as they always do in the end.  And, of course, there is the UCLA Grand Hotel for $152 million, about which the Regents also raised concerns and then rubber stamped.  That’s just the most recent three projects.  As this blog noted, the Regents are rolling along to approval of a new engineering building.  So we are creeping –  or maybe galloping – into Dirksen territory

Not to worry, of course, because none of this will cost anything to anybody.  The state no longer wants to pay for UC capital projects so there will be no cost to the state.  And, according to UCLA, all the rest is donations, “reserves,” and future revenues that will eventually take care of the costs and can be financed (borrowed).

Obviously, shovel ready

We asked in a post yesterday whether donations were unlimited so that tapping donors for one project might not mean less in donations to something else.  We have noted that business plans may not be realistic and that despite the blending of accounts of the multiple enterprises around the university, somebody will pay for overly optimistic forecasts.  And, of course, one might ask whether tapping “reserves” is costless.

But we know the answer to all these questions:

Anybody want to buy a bridge?

Retiree Health Changes

Yesterday, this blog noted the upcoming UC open enrollment period and changes in the various health care options. Among them were what appeared to be rather drastic changes for retirees living outside California. One wonders whether the court ruling noted below might have some relevance for the ability of UC to make such changes.  Any legal scholars want to chime in?  Comments welcome.

A superior court judge overturned a freeze on retiree health care for Los Angeles city attorneys this month, citing some of the same case law that made public pensions a vested right that can only be cut if offset by a new benefit.
 
The court ruling is a blow to the view that state and local governments, when looking for cost savings, may be able to make cuts in promised retiree health care that are not allowed for tamper-proof pensions…

(P)art of the legal rationale for the Los Angeles retiree health care option is a provision in the city charter that specifically reserves the right to modify retiree health care benefits…

Full story from calpensions.com at http://calpensions.com/2013/09/23/judge-rules-retiree-health-protected-like-pension/

The actual court decision is at http://www.lacaa.org/docs/13-09-13-order-granting-writ.pdf

Health Insurance Open Enrollment

You have undoubtedly been getting emails and other material pointing to open enrollment during October 28-November 26, 2013. There are important changes in various health insurance options. If you are a retiree who lives outside of California, it is really important because there are major changes coming. Essentially, you will be getting a UC contribution towards an exchange.

Info at atyourservice.ucop.edu/oe/medical

Just a reminder:

Listen to the First Part of the Regents Meeting of 9-17-2013

But before you listen, note that we have been archiving Regents audios because of regental policy not to archive them for more than one year.  Today, there was a bit of a mishap in the handling of the Regents live stream.  As a result, yours truly sent the email below to an official in the Regents’ office:

As you may know, the UCLA Faculty Assn. posts the audios of regents meetings online since it is apparently regents policy not to archive the recordings for more than one year online.  As a result, I turned on my recorder at 1 pm today, Sept. 17, since it was difficult to know when the closed session would end and the open one would begin.  As it turned out, you had a hot mike at the supposedly closed session and in fact broadcast parts of it online.  I won’t post those parts but I have attached as a wma file the excerpts that went out in public for your info.  They appear to contain sensitive material about market sharing of health services in Orange County.  My sense is that if the broadcasting and archiving were turned over to one of the campus AV services, this kind of thing would not happen.  It is likely, however, that a campus AV service, such as at UCLA, would want to archive the recordings online indefinitely, the standard practice now for many govt. entities.
Note that if the regents didn’t have the one-year-only policy, I would not have had a recorder turned on since the open sessions would have been archived indefinitely.  Who else may have heard the closed session and/or recorded it, I don’t know.  

===
The Regents agenda is below for the first part of the meeting:

Agenda
Tuesday, September 17
1:00 pm Committee on Health Services (Regents only session)
1:20 pm Committee of the Whole (public comment session)
1:40 pm Committee on Health Services (open session)

During the public comment session, there were complaints by students that it was difficult to set up meetings with incoming UC president Napolitano, who isn’t here yet.  Students also requested that some Regents meetings should be held in southern California for the benefit of the campuses there.  There were complaints that out-of-state tuition was too high, concerns about online education, and reference to some kind of campaign (unclear what it is) involving prisons vs. higher ed funding in California.

After the public comments, there was discussion of a strategic plan and construction related thereto for health sciences at UC-San Diego.  Then there was discussion of a planned merger between Children’s Hospital-Oakland and UC-SF.  Much of the discussion revolved around unstated concerns about the “financials” of Children’s Hospital and assurances to the Regents that nothing would be done that would consummate the marriage until those concerns were resolved.  Given the tone of the assurances, the merger may be more shaky than anyone wanted to say.  There is slated to be more discussion of the merger in the Finance committee tomorrow. 

You can hear the first portion of the meeting at the link below:

A bad patch of news for UCLA’s patent on the nicotine patch?

From Time:

…The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently evaluating the safety of e-cigarettes, which are battery-powered versions of cigarettes that can contain varying amounts of nicotine but don’t expose users to the potentially harmful byproducts of tobacco smoke such as tar and carbon monoxide. Instead, they inhale nicotine vapors, which the device’s advocates say is safer than smoking conventional cigarettes, and makes e-cigarettes a viable way to kick the habit as well.

And the latest study on e-cigarettes, published in the journal Lancet, supports that claim. In the first clinical trial comparing e-cigarettes and nicotine patches in helping people to quit smoking, both methods proved equally successful…

Full story at: http://healthland.time.com/2013/09/07/e-cigarettes-as-effective-as-nicotine-patches-in-smoking-cessation

Unclear Consequences of Ruling on VA Uses for UCLA Sports & Other Events

There is a news report today that a court has ruled that the VA property that is almost adjacent to UCLA has been improperly used for purposes other than veterans’ health care. UCLA rents space at the VA for sports programs. Over the years, there have been uses for theaters and other events for the general public.Some commercial businesses have also rented space. Recently, there was a Shakespeare theater group at the VA in an open-air venue. 

Exactly what the ruling – which is temporarily stayed for 6 months – might mean for such uses, including those by UCLA, is unclear.

Apparently, one purpose of the suit was to get the VA to do more for homeless vets, although it is unclear that it will have that consequence since the court cannot force the VA to undertake such activities.  There has been some history of local residents having concerns that the VA was planning uses that might add to neighborhood traffic, etc. 

You can read about the ruling at http://brentwood.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/court-rules-va-broke-law-in-west-la-property-use and http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-va-aclu-lawsuit-ruling-rejects-leases-20130829,0,658539.story