Now to be called Drake House?

From Berkeleyside: The president of the University of California once again has an architecturally significant place in which to live and entertain. Fourteen years after the University of California abandoned the Blake House in Kensington as the official home of the president, and after years of rentals for its top leaders, the system has purchased a historic home in Berkeley designed by the architect Julia Morgan.

Using private funds, the UC system bought 2821 Claremont Blvd. in December for $6.5 million. Some artwork and furnishings original to the 1928 house were included in the sale. UC had owned the house for decades, but sold it in 1991.

“The long-term investment returns the Berkeley landmark to the University, providing multiple uses that benefit the school and will serve as the official residence for University presidents,” Stett Holbrook, a senior communications strategist at the UC Office of the President, wrote in an email.

Michael Drake is the current president of the UC system, which includes 10 campuses, five medical centers, three nationally affiliated labs, more than 280,000 students, and 230,000 faculty and staff. When he was hired in 2020, his salary was $890,000.

Morgan, one of the first women to graduate from UC Berkeley’s College of Civil Engineering, is best known for designing San Simeon Hearst Castle for the publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst. She also designed the Berkeley City Club on Durant Avenue, the Greek Theater, and the Hearst Gymnasium, along with about 700 other buildings...

Full story at https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/04/12/uc-buys-6-5-million-berkeley-mansion-president.

Note to the Regents: It's Hard to Ignore - Part 2

Yesterday, we noted that the Consumer Price Index was indicating significant inflation - with implications both for salary adjustments and pension adjustments.* Another index, the Producer Price Index (a successor to what was once called the Wholesale Price Index), is meant to suggest inflation in the "pipeline" that is coming toward retail prices. It was released today and it suggests there is indeed more in the pipeline to process, as the chart above shows. Put another way, there is more for the Regents to consider at their May meetings.

The latest PPI can be found at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ppi.pdf.

===

*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/04/note-to-regents-its-hard-to-ignore.html.

TMT Issues Seem Linked to Other Politics in Hawaii - Continued

We have been looking in from time to time on the Thirty-Meter Telescope (TMT) issue in Hawaii.* UC is one of the partners in the proposal for TMT. It appears that while the governor of Hawaii favors TMT, the house and senate do not see eye-to-eye on it. The issue comes up at the Regents in public comments on a regular basis. It's not clear that even if state politicians came to an agreement to go ahead, the project would actually go forward in the face of protesters who, in the past, have blocked construction. See below:

State House and Senate on a collision course over future of astronomy on Mauna Kea

By Mahealani Richardson, 4-8-22, Hawaii News Now

HONOLULU - The state House and Senate are on a collision course over the future of astronomy on Mauna Kea. Senate lawmakers passed a bill Friday that keeps the university in charge of telescopes on the summit. That’s unlike the House bill, which the governor says could kill the Thirty Meter Telescope project and other observatories. State Sen. Donovan Dela Cruz, Senate Ways and Means Committee chair, said the Senate bill “addresses the perceived threat to the future astronomy in our state.” The authority, Dela Cruz said, would “properly conserve, protect and manage the public uses of Mauna Kea conservation lands. At the same time, the University will be solely responsible to care and manage the astronomy research lands.”

The university would sublease 9,450 acres to the new authority, but UH would be solely responsible for negotiating its subleases with the telescopes. “It puts Mauna Kea first in terms of the conservation of the land and it puts the observatories and the astronomy precinct also first,” said Donna Mercado Kim, Senate Higher Education chair.

In a recent interview with Hawaii News Now, Gov. David Ige had warned that earlier versions of the bill could have killed the Thirty Meter Telescope project and astronomy on Mauna Kea because of uncertainty with telescope leases up for renegotiation. “Are they intending to shut down astronomy on Hawaii island. They should be clear about it. Do they support astronomy or do they believe it should be stopped?” said Ige. But Mercado Kim says the governor was wrong. “The problem is we never heard from the governor,” said Mercado Kim. “We put a lot of things in place that sent the message that it’s not the end of astronomy.”

State Sen. Kurt Fevella is against the Thirty Meter Telescope and UH being the sole manager of Mauna Kea. He says he voted for the bill even though he disagrees with parts of it. “We can continue to separate Mauna Kea from the university. You cannot do it all in one time or the bill would have died,” said Fevella. The House and Senate have different stands on the role of the university on the mountain and the differences will have to be negotiated or the bill will die.

Source: https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/04/09/senate-lawmakers-say-theyre-not-trying-kill-mauna-kea-astronomy/.

====

*Most recently: http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/04/more-tmt.html and http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/04/tmt-issues-seem-linked-to-other.html.

====

See also:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S9yuXlqIqw.

On the other hand...

Our previous post pointed to the inflation problem and possible consequences. But the state controller tells us that at the moment, the state is rolling in cash. For the first nine months of the fiscal year 2021-22, revenues (mainly taxes) to the general fund totaled $155.1 billion. Back in January when the governor proposed his budget for next year, revenues at this time were projected to be "only" $137.1 billion. And back last June when the budget for this year was enacted, revenues were forecast to be "only" $116.1 billion. So we received $18 billion more than expected in January and $39 billion more than was originally forecast back last June.

Most of the unexpected revenue is coming from the corporation tax (so higher than expected profits) and from the personal income tax (so top earners doing better than expected).

Hint to Regents: Get it while you can.

The latest controller's cash report is at https://sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD/CASH/MARCH2022StatementofGeneralFundCashReceiptsandDisbursements.pdf.

Note to the Regents: It's Hard to Ignore

The latest reading on the Consumer Price Index is above. The 12-month figure is 8.5%. So-called "core" inflation, removing the effect of volatile food and energy, still gives you 6.5%. This information will have to factor into salary adjustments. We also noted in a prior post that the pension adjustment formula only partially reflects inflation above 2% per annum and that the Regents will need to be reminded of their "practice" of ad hoc adjustments for long-time pensioners who have suffered substantial erosion of their benefits.

Hard to ignore.

So far, the Federal Reserve has made only a modest upward adjustment of interest rates in response to inflation. It will be doing more in the future. What is now a booming economy in real terms - with labor shortages, etc. - could be tipped into a recession by aggressive moves by the Fed. Unlike the pandemic recession - which turned out not to have the expected major negative effects on the state (and thus the UC) budget - a more "conventional" recession would have negative effects.

The latest CPI news release is at:

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf.

Proposed Student Housing Money

From left, UC President Clark Kerr, Lillian Dykstra (widow of Clarence Dykstra), Chairman of the UC Board of Regents Donald McLaughlin and UCLA Chancellor Vern Knudsen are greatly pleased with the architectural model for the new residence hall.

It takes awhile to get to the bottom line, but a new Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) publication points to $135 million in proposed state spending on new UC housing, $35 million for UCLA and $100 million for UC-San Diego. UC originally requested $597 million for various projects but some were found to be of lower priority or ineligible. (The figure omits a request by Hastings Law School.)

Details at https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2022/4589/Student-Housing-040822.pdf.

Sounds of Silence - Part 2

Back on April 4th, the LA Times published an op ed by two UC physicians complaining that UC Health facilities took very few Medi-Cal patients because of low reimbursement rates from that program. (Medi-Cal is the California component of federal Medicaid, which generally provides health insurance for indigent persons.) Blog readers will know that we waited a couple of days to see if there was a response by UC Health and then published excerpts from the op ed, expressing some surprise that there hadn't been an official response. We included some data from a UC publication that suggested there was a significant Medi-Cal presence among UC Health patients.*

Yesterday, two letters to the editor - one from Carrie Byington, the top executive at UC Health - appeared in response. We reproduce them below. Exactly why there was a long delay is unclear. Was it in getting a response written or a delay by the LA Times?

Letters to the Editor: If UC is abandoning Medi-Cal patients, that’s news to these doctors

To the editor: Drs. Michael Wilkes and David Schriger suggest that University of California health systems do not adequately or equitably provide care to low-income patients on Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance program. I do not doubt that my colleagues speak from the heart or with best intentions. I simply offer a contrasting experience.

As a surgical specialist with more than 20 years in the UC system, I know my practice has never shied away from delivering care to underserved populations. As chief of the Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery at UC San Diego Health, I regularly monitor our practice’s quality, care delivery and patient satisfaction data. Our payor mix for Medi-Cal and underfunded care routinely hovers at 20%-30%.

UC hospitals are critical providers of Medi-Cal services, and by most measures, UC Health is the No. 2 provider of Medi-Cal hospital services in the state. Our hospitals received the most complex COVID-19 cases from surrounding facilities, and we partnered with border hospitals to support efforts to care for vulnerable populations. Does this sound like “shirking responsibility”?

It is true that state reimbursements for Medi-Cal patients do not cover the actual cost of care, which is often higher because this patient population more frequently requires greater intensity care due to more advanced diseases at the time of diagnosis and treatment.

Nonetheless, I have yet to encounter any clinician who would refuse to help a patient based on their funding status.** We are working collectively as a system to find creative ways to deliver extraordinary care for a fraction of the true cost while able to train new generations of providers and keeping our nationally ranked health systems financially afloat.

Can we do better? Of course. Always. We should. That’s what’s powerful about working for the University of California — we are united by our shared mission and our commitment to the people of California.

Dr. Sonia Ramamoorthy, San Diego

The writer is a professor of surgery at the UC San Diego School of Medicine.

..

To the editor: The UC system is committed to its public service mission of improving the health of all Californians, regardless of how or if individuals are insured.

The Times’ op-ed article does not accurately reflect UC’s care for Medi-Cal enrollees. UC is the second-largest provider of Medi-Cal hospital services by most measures, despite representing less than 6% of state hospital beds. Thirty-five percent of our patients are Medi-Cal enrollees, the system’s second-largest type of patients by health plan coverage, ahead of all commercial health insurers.

UC physicians also deliver primary care to Medi-Cal enrollees at federally qualified health centers. In the past year, UC cancer centers cared for nearly 10,000 active cancer patients covered by Medi-Cal.

We are proud of the care we give for Californians enrolled in Medi-Cal, are looking into the questions raised, and will address any areas for improvement identified.

Dr. Carrie L. Byington, Oakland. The writer is executive vice president of UC Health.

====

Source: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/story/2022-04-10/uc-medi-cal-patients-response.

====

*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/04/sounds-of-silence.html.

**This sentence seems to be an overstatement. I am sure blog readers have encountered questions about insurance and statements that we don't take this or that insurance from doctors' offices. It is true - as we pointed out in the original post - that hospitals with emergency rooms must provide ER treatment to anyone regardless of insurance or status. However, the problems Medi-Cal patients have in finding doctors that will accept the low reimbursements of that program are well known, as a quick Google search will reveal. Examples: 

https://www.kqed.org/stateofhealth/39062/in-medi-cal-many-managed-care-patients-cant-find-doctors; https://www.shastahealth.org/californians-medi-cal-face-hurdles-see-specialists-throughout-state; https://www.chcf.org/press-release/nearly-half-of-states-doctors-will-not-treat-medi-cal-patients/.

Exactly what policy applies to the many physicians who have some link with UC Health is unclear. It's also unclear why the LA Times chose to leave the issue as a kind of he-said/she-said debate. Was any kind of fact checking done?