Category: health care

The CalPERS Long-Term Care Affair

We have noted in earlier posts that although UC employees are not covered by CalPERS, at one point in the past, they were offered the “opportunity” to buy long-term care insurance through CalPERS.  But then CalPERS began jacking up the cost and, for those who protested, offering inferior alternative policies.

CalPERS position is that it didn’t deliberately lowball the initial premiums but instead just underestimated what the costs would be.  But some subscribers disagree and now there is a lawsuit.

From the Sacramento Bee:

CalPERS was sued Tuesday over the big rate hikes it imposed on its long-term care insurance program, which covers stays in nursing homes. The class-action suit was filed by a Los Angeles law firm on behalf of more than 100,000 CalPERS members who have purchased the coverage and now face big rate increases. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, says policyholders were duped into thinking the rates would be fixed and “reasonably priced.”…

Full story at http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/06/5628197/calpers-sued-over-long-term-care.html 

Update: A link to the lawsuit is at http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/08/read-the-lawsuit-against-calpers-on-long-term-care-insurance.html

Rank Order or Rank Odor

From today’s Sacramento Bee:

 On the surface, it might seem self-serving for UC Davis School of Medicine to rip into the annual U.S. News & World Report rankings that rate it below the nation’s elite primary care schools. One might suspect it was sour grapes by a medical school unhappy with its rankings.The school poured four years of research and almost $10,000 of its own grant funding into a stinging academic critique of the news magazine’s ranking methodology.”These findings raise questions regarding the ranking’s validity and usefulness,” said the paper, published this month in the journal Academic Medicine.

A primary problem, the paper said, is that the magazine essentially is conducting an opinion survey. This results in wild swings in a medical school’s year-to-year standings…

The full story is at http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/04/5622346/public-eye-uc-davis-study-challenges.html

The underlying study is at http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2013/08000/Short_Term_Stability_and_Spread_of_the_U_S__News__.26.aspx

And the song is at:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu5hzc2Mei4?feature=player_detailpage]

Campus Happenings Yesterday

Demonstrators return to campus

Yesterday, this blog noted that UC had imposed its terms on the union (AFSCME 3299) that had struck for two days recently at university med centers.  There was a demonstration yesterday the blocked traffic at Westwood and Wilshire Boulevards.  Yours truly happened to be in a coffee shop at Lindbrook and Westwood as the demonstration ended.  Photo above. You can find a news account at http://centurycity.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/protest-rally-near-ucla-leads-to-arrests.

In a totally different vein, there was some kind of children’s program at the campus Fowler Museum which produced the two figures below.

Fowler fare    

Yours truly noted yesterday that the day before, nothing seemed to be going on at the blocked off site of the UCLA Grand Hotel.  Friday was no exception.

UC Hospital Dispute Seems to Have Ended

Although UC and AFSCME 3299 – the union that called the recent 2-day hospital strike (including at UCLA) – seem to have gone their separate ways, it appears the dispute is over for now.  The Daily Bruin carries a report that UC has unilaterally implemented its last offer. Under state labor law, an employer can implement its offer unilaterally if negotiations have reached an “impasse.”  In such instances, the union might challenge the implementation before PERB on grounds that an impasse had not been reached.  Or it could threaten or undertake a strike.  However, the media release by the union does not refer to either option.

The Daily Bruin article is at http://dailybruin.com/2013/07/25/uc-union-workers-settle-on-plan-with-wage-increases-health-benefits/

The union’s media release is at http://www.afscme3299.org/2013/07/25/statement-afscme-responds-to-uc-decision-to-implement-contract/

UC’s media release is at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/29806

That Which Cannot Go on Forever…

Herb Stein

Herb Stein, President Nixon’s chief economist, once said, “That which cannot go on forever must come to an end.”  There is a school of thought – to which our governor arguably belongs – that says that because tuition at colleges and universities has been rising faster than inflation, there is a bubble that will inevitably burst, maybe around now.  Bette Billet, president of the UCLA Faculty Women’s Club for 2013-14, passed me an article that argues that both higher ed and medicine are in the same boat. So, one might assume, a university with a med school is really in trouble – or is soon to be in trouble.  Excerpt:

…(F)or cities hanging their hat on eds and meds growth, a … fundamental problem now looms: these industries are at the end of their growth cycle. Spending on healthcare and college tuition costs has been skyrocketing at rates greater than inflation for years…

You can find the article at http://www.urbanophile.com/2013/07/07/replay-the-end-of-the-road-for-eds-and-meds/

Note that forecasting the timing of when things end is difficult.  Moreover, unlike financial bubbles – which tend to end suddenly with large ripple effects – other trends can reverse more gradually with less harm done. And note that the notion that putting courses online will fix the tuition problem is questionable even though that seems to be the remedy de jour. There is an item in Inside Higher Ed today that suggests that the MOOC bubble may be bursting: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/09/higher-ed-leaders-urge-slow-down-mooc-train

UCLA Monkey Trial Soon

We have blogged about this case before – without really knowing what the full background is.  But apparently, it is coming to trial this Thursday: The dispute over a Wake Forest University Health Sciences primate colony in southern Forsyth County goes to its first hearing at 10 a.m. Thursday.  The hearing involves Wake Forest as plaintiffs and the board of regents for the University of California system as defendants. It will be held in the federal building in downtown Winston-Salem… The Wake Forest division filed a lawsuit in February to end a joint venture with the University of California at [sic] Los Angeles at the research center in the Friedberg community. Wake Forest officials are requesting a jury trial in Forsyth Superior Court. UCLA, in return, accuses Wake Forest of financially mismanaging the research center and using vervet monkeys there for unauthorized research, including a dengue fever study. The regents alleged in their countersuit that Wake Forest is making “false” and “misleading” statements about the regents’ role with the state of California. Wake Forest said it is willing to shut down the vervet colony if UCLA doesn’t agree to continue to pay its obligations for operating costs… UCLA said the contract allows the university to receive the title for the colony at no cost and to relocate the monkeys...
There was a former ex officio Regent of UC who knew about such matters: 
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zHN4vCfwh4?feature=player_detailpage]
(If you have more info on this case, please use the comment option to add it.)

Listen to the Regents: March 13, 2013 – morning session

Our efforts to archive Regents meetings (since the Regents’ policy is currently to preserve them only for one year) continues.  Below is the agenda for the morning meeting of March 13, 2013.  Included was approval of a UCLA medical building about which cost concerns had been raised at an earlier meeting.  Eventually, the Regents seem to approve any construction project – even if concerns are raised – particularly when they are assured that it won’t cost them anything.

Agenda for Wednesday, March 13, 2013 – morning
8:30 am Committee of the Whole (open session – includes public comment session)
9:30 am Committee on Grounds and Buildings (open session)
11:00 am Committee on Finance (open session)
11:15 am Committee on Educational Policy (open session)
12:00 Lunch

You can hear the audio of this meeting at the link below:
 

GlaxoSmithKline Problem Said to Be Fixed

Back in May, we blogged about a cautionary note from UCLA indicating that a grant competition from GlaxoSmithKline appeared to circumvent university procedures.

Now an email has gone out to faculty indicating that the problem has been fixed:

I am pleased to report we resolved the barriers to faculty participation in the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Discovery Fast Track Competition. We encourage faculty who are developing novel drug targets and drug screening assays to consider applying for this program.

When the competition initially launched, we found that the terms and conditions to be at odds with UC policies and faculty interests. We took a definitive stand and notified faculty – a position that was supported by many peer institutions.

With the support of the Office of the President, we have since resolved the key concerns with GSK. Faculty may submit proposals for developing and conducting screens of GSK’s internal compound collections and thereby advance the development of novel drug targets, pathways and assays. This may lead to further collaborations and/or sponsored research with GSK, thereby helping UCLA move discoveries forward to the clinic for the benefit of patients.

The competition closes on Friday, July 19, 2013. The Office of Intellectual Property & Industry Sponsored Research will work closely with you to determine whether your submission may be appropriate for the program. Given the short and strict timeframe, we encourage you to contact us as soon as possible so that we can complete the necessary steps before your proposal can officially be considered.

For more on this program, please see the link below and we look forward to working with you on potential proposal submissions.

Sincerely,

Brendan J. Rauw
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
Executive Director of Entrepreneurship

The Gay Marriage Decisions: What Do They Mean for UC?

As the preliminary reports and analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage appear, you may be wondering what effect it might have on U.C., particularly with regard to benefits.  Or maybe you are not wondering since you know that U.C. has provided dependent benefits for domestic partners.  There is actually an effect through the federal tax system.  The now-defunct Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) meant that the IRS did not recognize gay marriages, even in states where such marriages were permitted.  Thus a spouse/dependent in such a relationship, even if eligible for, say, coverage under his or her spouse’s health insurance (at UC or elsewhere) had to pay taxes on the value of that coverage.  With DOMA gone, presumably such benefits to dependent same sex spouses will now receive the same tax-favored treatment that was afforded under federal law to opposite sex spouses.

The Supreme Court avoided ruling on California’s Prop 8 ban on gay marriage.  However, a lower court had voided the Prop 8 ban – which was the route by which the case reached the Supreme Court – so presumably gay marriage will now resume in California.  (There may be some local variation initially but it will be possible for gay couples to marry in the state and thus receive federal tax-favored treatment for benefits.)  It is unlikely, however, that domestic partnerships will be recognized as marriages by IRS, particularly since formal marriage will now be an option for gay couples.  Thus, gay couples under UC benefit plans that are currently in domestic partnerships and that choose not to get married won’t receive federal tax-favored treatment.  At least, so says yours truly – a non-lawyer and non-tax expert.  (So be warned.)

UPDATE: The governor has told the counties to resume or begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Story at http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/06/jerry-brown-tells-california-counties-to-issue-gay-marriage-licenses.html

Shying Away from Retiring

Inside Higher Ed today carries an article about surveys of faculty who say they don’t plan to retire at the “normal” age or maybe ever.  The work-til-you-drop response is attributed to such motivations as wanting to be intellectually active but also importantly to concerns about having sufficient funds and health insurance to retire.  When UC was considering changing its retirement plan – it created a two-tier program – it retained the defined benefit approach rather than switch to a defined contribution approach.  Many faculty in the U.S. are under TIAA-CREF or some similar defined contribution program which means that they face the danger of outliving their savings.  Retiree health care is also not necessarily provided.

UC retained its basic defined benefit model in part to encourage faculty renewal.  Many years ago, before federal law changed, universities – including UC – had mandatory retirement ages.  Once that policy was made illegal, only the defined benefit system provides an incentive to retire.  Under defined benefit, the retiree can’t outlive his or her savings.  And long service employees essentially end up working for nothing if they continue so the system incentivizes “on time” retirement.  Decisions in the future on retirement benefits need to be take account of the behavioral effects of the system.

The Inside Higher Ed article is at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/17/data-suggest-baby-boomer-faculty-are-putting-retirement