UCSF Faculty Association

November 14, 2023
by admin
0 comments

UC Union Coalition Letter on Health Plan Cost Increases

On November 14th, the Council of UC Faculty Associations signed on to the following UC Union Coalition letter that was sent to the UC Regents and copied to President Drake. A PDF of the letter is also available.


Dear Regents of the University of California:

The University of California Union Coalition demands that the Regents take action to mitigate the massive increases to the healthcare costs of our members planned for the coming year. Workers across the state are facing premium increases of more than 20 percent in most cases. For some, these increases will nearly triple their monthly costs. When healthcare premiums already cost hundreds of dollars per month, the massive increases that the Regents are moving forward with will cause real and lasting harm to many California families.

The University has acknowledged in an October 16th memo that it “…will continue to assess medical plan premiums by pay level to ensure costs are affordable, particularly for lower-paid workers.” While the sentiment is appreciated, the proposed increases fail to adequately translate it into practice. The lowest-paid workers in the UC system do not have the luxury of simply absorbing an increase of this magnitude. Many of the members of the unions in the UC community represent workers who do not get full-time contracts or adequate hours. The increases on the table mean that many of our most marginalized workers will have to make choices between adequate healthcare, rent payments, and other basic necessities.

Moreover, the policy needs to be considered seriously in terms of its disparate impact on the diverse groups who constitute our community. The damage done by the university’s decision falls most heavily on historically disadvantaged groups. For example, immigrants and people of color are overrepresented in the ranks of our community’s lowest-earning members. Similarly, there is a large pay discrepancy between men and women across the UC system. To give just one example, there is a major underrepresentation of women in ladder faculty positions, and a corresponding overrepresentation of women in contingent lecturer positions. This means that the effects of the increase will be inevitably gendered. The Regents have both an ethical and policy-mandated responsibility to promote equality in the UC system, and this decision is going to further exacerbate the major inequities that many of our members face every day.

We believe that there is also a conflict of interest in how the university has negotiated the rate increases with the providers in its own system. Given that two of the major plans available to UC employees are based on the UC hospital system, the Regents should have invited a third party to participate in the negotiations over the plan cost increases. The only group getting a good deal here are the administrators of the hospital systems.

Many of our members have told us how this policy would affect their families. One member writes: “My family and I are already barely scraping by, due to expensive cost of living and inflation. We will be forced to cut back on medical expenses, leaving some issues untreated and hoping they don’t get worse.” We are certain that the UC does not want to see its members forgo necessary healthcare. Any policy that forces workers to simply live with untreated conditions is of course cruel. At the same time, policies like this are part of the very reason that healthcare costs continue to rise. Instead of getting care when they need it, employees with poor quality, limited access, high co-pay insurance causes people to wait until they face a medical crisis to get treated. This is inevitably much more expensive to everyone involved than simply providing good quality, affordable healthcare that heads off issues before they become emergencies. The UC Regents should commit themselves to being part of the solution rather than the problem.

In conclusion, we demand that the UC Regents stop passing on cost increases to employees. We demand union involvement in healthcare plan negotiations. And we also need transparency regarding the negotiations between the University and its own health systems to protect from self-dealing.

Sincerely,
Michael Avant, President
AFSCME Local 3299

Stephanie Short, Asst. Director, UC Division
CNA/NNU

Constance Penley, President
Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA)

Jason Rabinowitz, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local 2010

Rafael Jaime, President
UAW Local 2685

Neal Sweeney, President
UAW Local 5810

Katie Rodger, Ph.D., President
UC-American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

Dan Russell, President
UPTE-CWA Local 9119

cc: UC President Michael Drake

October 30, 2023
by admin
0 comments

Our letter objecting to unreasonable increases in health benefit costs

Below is a letter to UC President Michael Drake and the UC Regents objecting to healthcare benefit costs to employees increasing by 15% to 193%, depending on plan and coverage, that CUCFA sent on October 30th. The Faculty Associations collected 1,600 signatures for a second edition of this letter, which was sent to President Drake and the UC Regents on November 12th.


October 30, 2023

President Michael V. Drake
Office of the President
University of California
1111 Franklin St., 12th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607

Delivered via Email to: president@ucop.edu

Dear President Drake,

Starting today, every UC employee received an Open Enrollment notice with new rates for healthcare benefits. UCOP presented these changes to UC Unions and the Council of UC Faculty Associations just three days before the start of Open Enrollment, leaving no opportunity for any input.

The increases in the employee health benefits share are unprecedented and alarming. Costs for healthcare benefits will be going up between 15% and 193% per month, depending on one’s plan and coverage. For example, if you currently pay for Kaiser for yourself and your spouse/partner, your cost will increase by 74% on January 1. Employees who insure themselves and their whole family (spouse/partner + children) through UC Health Savings Plan will see an increase of 171%. Every health benefit plan and coverage tier is affected, and these changes will impact the over 200,000 employees who receive benefits in the UC system.

Struck by the exorbitant increases, the UC unions and CUCFA pressed for answers. UCOP representatives cited inflation, deferred preventative care during the pandemic, rising drug costs, and clinical workforce shortages as root causes for these price increases. While these are all real issues impacting healthcare costs everywhere, when pushed for details about how prices were negotiated and set for UC employees, UCOP’s answers were unsatisfactory and lacked transparency.

For example, the cost to employees is determined by the insurance company rate increase less the employer share contribution. UC did not provide information about either the rate increase or the employer contribution, so there is no way to tell if UC is paying its share of the increased cost. But other sources indicate that Kaiser’s rate increase was probably about 15% this year[1], which would mean that UC reduced its share of contributions by about 20%.

We object to these unreasonable increases in our health benefit costs and UC’s secrecy and nontransparency in devising and announcing these policies. Your approach serves not only to degrade and disrespect UC’s academic employees but also contributes to the ongoing severe erosion of UC’s teaching and research mission. You will be hearing more from CUCFA, the UC unions, and the 200,000 people in the UC community who are now learning about how their lives and livelihoods will be devastated by the poorly warranted policy changes to our healthcare that UCOP has sprung on them.

Sincerely,

Constance Penley
President, The Council of UC Faculty Associations
Professor, Film and Media Studies, UCSB

cc: The UC Regents

February 8, 2021
by operations
0 comments

Sign to Stop UC from Anti-Reproductive Rights/Anti-LGBTQ+ Affiliations

Pasted below is a message from UCSF Ob/Gyn faculty member Jody Steinauer about UC affiliations with healthcare entities that use religious directives to prohibit the use of contraception, gender-affirming care for transgender people, abortion, and assisted reproductive technology (e.g. sperm/egg donors, IVF).

We feel this issue is an important concern to UCSF faculty, and ask you to consider signing the letter linked below.

********

Dear UC Colleagues and Allies,

I am reaching out as a UCSF Ob/Gyn faculty member who cares deeply about reproductive rights and the care of LGBTQ+ people. Please sign our letter to UC President Michael Drake that expresses opposition to UC affiliations with healthcare entities that use religious directives to prohibit the use of contraception, gender-affirming care for transgender people, abortion, and assisted reproductive technology (e.g. sperm/egg donors, IVF). 

I believe religious directives that prohibit essential care for women and LGBTQ+ people are antithetical to our UC values, our public, secular mission, and our commitment to equity, nondiscrimination, and care of the underserved. These restrictive systems of care harm vulnerable populations; UC affiliations with these entities elevate the needs of some patients at the expense of discriminating against others. 

In its first eight days, the Biden-Harris administration has issued important executive orders to protect LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights. With this momentum, it is certainly not the time for our California public universities to expand discriminatory care. With a solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court, states will continue to enact policies that restrict access to care, as we have seen with abortion. Therefore, California needs to expand, not restrict, access to the full range of sexual and reproductive healthcare and set an example for high quality care that is consistent with our values.

Please sign the Letter to UC President Drake and forward to other UC faculty, staff, trainees, or alumni. Also, we are not alone in our opposition to these affiliations. Fifty one major advocacy groups for LGBTQ+ people, reproductive health, and health equity/care of the underserved, as well as the majority of California’s federal and state members of Congress have written letters of opposition. Scroll down on the linked page to see their letters.

Thank you for your support,

Jody Steinauer, MD, PhD (she/her/hers)
Philip D. Darney Distinguished Professor of Family Planning & Reproductive Health
Director, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health
Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
University of California, San Francisco

September 24, 2020
by operations
0 comments

CUCFA’s letter to UC about the Potential for Censorship of Faculty by Private Technology Providers

September 24, 2020

President Michael V. Drake
Office of the President
University of California
1111 Franklin St., 12th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607

Delivered via Email to: president@ucop.edu

Dear President Drake,

As members of the Board of the Council of UC Faculty Associations, we write with the utmost urgency regarding the cancellation of an approved remote/streaming panel at San Francisco State University yesterday, September 23, by Zoom, and the subsequent cancellation of the same event by Facebook Live and cut-off in mid-stream by YouTube. The event, titled “Whose Narratives: Gender, Justice and Resistance,” was sponsored by SFSU’s Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies Program and the Women and Gender Studies Department, and was to feature Palestinian feminist and militant Leila Khaled, as well as several South African and American activists.

After protests by several pro-Israel groups, Zoom announced that it was prohibiting the webinar – which was thoroughly vetted and approved by the University – from taking place less than two hours before its commencement. The event was subsequently restricted by Facebook and then, after beginning to be streamed on YouTube, was cut off by the company.

Zoom and the others claimed that Khaled’s membership in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (she is also a member of the Palestine National Council) made her appearance a potential violation of US law. SFSU clearly understood this not to be the case. The relevant Supreme Court decision on this issue, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which deals with the intersection of the First Amendment and “material support for terrorism” laws, clearly notes that there is no prohibition of being associated with or even a member of an organization, only for providing it with material support of some kind. Moreover, we need not remind you that the First Amendment extends the right not only to speak but also to hear and receive information even when presented by people opposed to the US or its policies.

As SFSU president Lynn Mahoney explained in defending her support of the event, it is imperative that faculty and the university be free from censorship, even from voices that most would find objectionable and even abhorrent: “The university will not enforce silence – even when speech is abhorrent.”

By preemptively canceling this talk, Zoom, Facebook and YouTube – which together represent three of the most important remote platforms used by universities during the Covid-19 pandemic – are engaging in a dangerous precedent of censorship, which will no doubt lead other governments and political groups to demand they cancel other events, classes or content that they oppose. As our colleague Saree Makdisi, professor of English and Comparative Literature at UCLA, argues, it is a frightening example of “what happens when we subcontract our universities to Zoom.” Simply put, we universities cannot allow Zoom to have a veto power over the content of our lectures and classes.

We thus call upon you to publicly demand that Zoom, Facebook, YouTube (Google/Alphabet) and other increasingly important social media-related educational platforms immediately agree never to cancel or otherwise censor university-related teaching, lectures or other events and, if they refuse, to move immediately towards finding alternative platforms for teaching and lectures that agree to respect our core First Amendment and Academic Freedom rights.

Sincerely,
The Executive Board of the Council of UC Faculty Associations

cc: Chancellor Carol T. Christ
      Chancellor Gary Stephen May
      Chancellor Howard Gillman
      Chancellor Gene D. Block
      Chancellor Juan Sánchez Muñoz
      Chancellor Kim A Wilcox
      Chancellor Pradeep K. Khosla
      Chancellor Sam Hawgood, MBBS
      Chancellor Henry Yang
      Chancellor Cynthia Larive

March 14, 2020
by operations
0 comments

President Napolitano, please extend striking student health insurance for COVID-19

March 14, 2020

Dear President Napolitano,

The Faculty Organizing Group at UCSC has just issued a very important letter to UCSC’s EVC Kletzer (copied below) in which they call for an act of “empathy, compassion, and responsibility” in reinstating the 80 graduate students fired for their participation in the COLA strike, because they are poised to lose their healthcare coverage at a time of the worst health crisis this country has faced in decades.

The Council of UC Faculty Associations endorses this call and addresses it specifically to you as an opportunity to rethink your harsh opposition to the just cause of UC’s graduate students. You know better than anyone how deep and sustained has been the disinvestment of the state in graduate education at the University of California. Take this chance to do the right thing and begin to work to do the just thing as well.

The Executive Board of the Council of UC Faculty Associations

Letter from the Faculty Organizing Group at UC Santa Cruz (This is posted here as it was part of the letter to President Napolitano, but the FOG letter is also available online, with a list of individual signers):


Dear iEVC/CP Kletzer,

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization officially characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic. On March 13, the president declared a national emergency due to COVID-19.  We appreciate that the campus is taking this health threat very seriously, as evidenced by its decisions to: (a) hold no in-person classes starting March 11, 2020, except for certain classes, and running through at least April 3; (b) suspend non-essential travel; c) cancel meetings larger than 50 people; and (d) encourage telecommuting as much as possible. We believe that these measures are consistent with an institution facing the vast responsibility of continuing to function while protecting the well-being of all its members in a swiftly changing situation.

At a time when we are likely to see a serious increase in COVID-19 cases in California, it is vital, even necessary, that everyone have access to healthcare. This is especially important in the US, where preparation against COVID-19 has not been as robust as it should have been. We trust that the campus is already considering how to meet the health care needs of our community for the next few months.

The global public health crisis changes the likely consequences of your recent decision to dismiss approximately 80 graduate students from their spring quarter teaching appointments. Since March 9, UCSHIP (the health insurance that covers most of UCSC’s graduate students) has been providing free screening and testing for COVID-19. Graduate students’ access to this health insurance is dependent on their employment at the university, so their termination also effectively terminates their health insurance coverage. To maintain their healthcare in spring quarter, dismissed students either face paying both tuition and health insurance premium out of pocket to retain their student status and healthcare, or taking a leave of absence and still paying $2885.60 for UCSHIP coverage. Because both of these options are prohibitively expensive for most graduate students – especially those who have just lost their income – dismissed students are likely to lose access to any healthcare.  Many students, including international students, will have no other option than to return home at a time when travel restrictions may make this impossible. For those students who remain in Santa Cruz without healthcare, their inability to secure timely testing and take appropriate measures endangers the community as a whole.

With COVID-19 bearing down on California and beyond, it seems the worst possible time to leave any members of our UCSC community stranded without access to health care. Instead, it is time for all of us to act with empathy, compassion, and responsibility toward everyone on our campus.  Given that healthcare is not yet recognized as a basic human right in this country, we urge you to reconsider your decision.  Please reinstate graduate students who received Notices Of Intent to Dismiss for spring quarter so that they can continue to access their healthcare networks.  To increase these students’ precarity, on top of the loss of their employment, livelihood, and planned courses of study, is not only dangerous to our community but antithetical to its most basic values.  We believe that we can all agree there is a better way forward.

Sincerely,
The Faculty Organizing Group

October 16, 2019
by operations
1 Comment

A proposal for paid family leave to all who work at UC

The Council of UC Faculty Associations’ board has just signed on to a proposal to provide paid family leave to all who work at the University of California. Most working residents of California have access to financial support for pregnancy, bonding with a new child, and caring for a sick family member. The governor is poised to further improve those programs.

University of California workers do not have this access. Staff employees are required to use accrued sick leave to stay home even just after giving birth, and although biological mothers on the faculty have six weeks of paid leave after birth, all other faculty parents are only eligible for teaching relief, and that must be individually negotiated with their Chairs.

Who pays for the work of caring for those who cannot care for themselves is a pressing social justice issue that goes well beyond the University of California. Apart from the raw question of what kind of world we are making, family leave policy also raises obvious equity issues relating to gender and family form. The University of California should be a leader in this context; instead we are far behind. This proposal is the beginning of a significant push to rectify that situation.

The committee working on the proposal is also looking for testimonials about UC employees’ experiences with dealing with a new child or a sick family leave under the current system. If you or someone else you know would like to contribute an account, it can be shared (anonymously or for attribution) here:  https://bit.ly/2Bd0Li4

It is high time the University of California offered paid family leave that is at least equivalent to the California Paid Family Leave program.

by Leslie Salzinger for the UCSF Faculty Association

October 8, 2019
by operations
0 comments

CUCFA Letter re: the Academic Advisory Committee for the Selection of a New UC President

Below is a copy of a letter CUCFA sent to the chair and vice chair of the systemwide Academic Senate regarding the academic advisory committee for the selection of a new UC President.


October 7, 2019

With President Napolitano’s announcement of her resignation, effective August 2020, it is vital to undertake a search process that is open and participatory to counter a national (and UC) trend toward secretive top-down searches that look for a chief executive to preside over the university. Rather, we should seek a selection process that develops the kind of leader we need through democratic consultation with UC’s constituents – faculty members, students, staff, and alumni. Disastrous recent presidential searches in South Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado show what happens when a governing board unilaterally produces a candidate whose remoteness from educational functions and faculty they deem a virtue.

Fortunately, the UC Regents have a formal search process that could ensure an active, democratic, consultative, and representative presidential selection. Regents Policy 7101 prescribes a number of steps following from the formation of a Special Committee comprised of six Regents and other ex officio members that consults with the Regents to set the criteria for the search, discusses potential candidates, and participates in making the final appointment. The Policy describes a potentially huge and dynamic systemwide consultation process that establishes four advisory committees representing faculty, students, staff, and alumni.

The Policy calls for the Chair of the Special Committee to invite the Academic Council to appoint an Academic Advisory Committee, our concern here, composed of not more than thirteen members, including the Chair of the Academic Council and at least one representative of each of the ten campuses, to assist the Special Committee in screening candidates. It is difficult to imagine how each of those Academic Advisory Committee members could represent the views of hundreds if not thousands of faculty between campuses and medical centers, across all disciplines, which have diverse needs, and across racial groups, which also have diverse needs.

So, too, it is not clear how the Academic Advisory Committee members, even if they are prestigious faculty members, campus heavyweights who are recognized as speaking authoritatively for (the leadership of) each campus, would influence the Special Committee or the Board of Regents. In the last three UC presidential searches, the business culture of the Regents has disregarded the professional culture of the faculty. The class gaps between professors and most regents are too wide and, in any case, faculty are stripped of decision rights.

The Policy, however, puts no limitations on the activities of the Advisory Committees. They could affect the presidential search by using the committees to prompt campus discussions about the presidential search in the context of the immediate future of UC. All of the Advisory Committees could set up a series of events in which they talk with their constituents on each of the ten campuses. They would listen to hopes and fears, gather ideas about leadership needs, hash them over, and then transmit the resulting comments, recommendations, or demands to the Special Committee. One faculty member suggested a “UC Day” in which town halls or other public events happen across the UC system at the same time. The Advisory Committees would have to identify a deadline that would fall before the Special Committee’s long-listing and short-listing of candidates such that it (and the Board overall) could fully consider the input. Each committee could do its work in about six weeks. The scope of the issue is limited and the reports could be short.

Another benefit of using the ACs as a public fulcrum: the town halls would be newsworthy. Whatever governing boards think of professors, unions, and students, they do care about institutional reputation, media coverage, and what they hear back from VIPs as a result of that. The timing of these town halls would be especially propitious in the context of the surprisingly vibrant national discussion in the presidential primary races of the need to return to the idea of higher education as a public good rather than a private commodity. The town halls could also serve to promote UC’s and California’s reputation for pioneering the original free college plan five decades ago. California’s Master Plan for Higher Education is globally recognized as having served as the key cultural and economic engine of California. We could again be a model and inspiration for other states and the nation of how to provide free quality higher education for the masses.

Notably, the parting words of both former UC President Yudof and outgoing President Napolitano emphasized the greatest regret of their respective tenures: that they should have been more consultative and deliberative with the faculty.

The CUCFA Board asks Academic Council President Bhavnani to form a democratic and representative Academic Advisory Committee formed of the chairs of the campus Academic Senates, who are directly answerable to their constituents. We also urge you to charge that committee with organizing town halls or other public events on each campus to prompt as large and participatory discussion as possible of both criteria for the selection of a new President and specific candidates for the job.

CUCFA is eager to partner with the Academic Council on this path towards greater and more democratic input by our faculty on a matter of great relevance to the life of our University.

Sincerely,
Constance Penley,
President, Council of UC Faculty Associations
and Professor of Film and Media Studies, UCSB

May 28, 2019
by operations
0 comments

Chancellor Hawgood’s letter of 5/28/2019 abandoning the proposal to affiliate with Dignity Health

We learned today that the concerted and united efforts of many (including the Faculty Association) have been successful in getting UCSF to give up on its plan to affiliate with Dignity Health. This is an especially important fight, and victory, in light of current efforts (some successful) to turn back the clock. We commend Chancellor Hawgood for his willingness to listen to all of our voices. Click HERE to read the Chancellor’s response to the UCSF community.

May 22, 2019
by operations
0 comments

Faculty Association letter to UC Regents re: Proposed UCSF/Dignity Health affiliation

May 22, 2019

To the Board of Regents:

Last week we wrote Chancellor Hawgood and President Napolitano on behalf of the UCSF Faculty Association to oppose the proposed affiliation agreement between UCSF and Dignity Health. We did so, in part, based on a survey of our membership. We did so while acknowledging that the need for UCSF Health to achieve economic viability now and in the future may require UCSF Health to foster agreements with a range of health care institutions. Our opposition is to affiliation with this particular institution.

Because of the importance of the issue and because of some concerns about the representativeness of our membership, we extended the same survey to the entire UCSF faculty. Seven hundred and five faculty responded and the results are nearly identical to those from our membership. Twenty-seven percent of the faculty respondents support the affiliation, 10 percent take a neutral stance, while 63 percent oppose. More than three-hundred faculty added comments on why they voted as they did. Those comments are available on our website.

As we wrote in our letter to Chancellor Hawgood and President Napolitano, the practices of Dignity Health violate the duty of a state institution to serve the needs of its patients based on their medical needs and the best evidence-based treatments of the patients’ choosing. With respect to Dignity Health, the issue is usually framed in terms of reproductive rights of adult women. We think that that is a crucial issue and ought to be determinative in of itself, but this framing ignores the needs of patients of all ages. For adolescents, the issue of access to information about reproductive issues and to the full range of medically-indicated contraception is important. For adults of all ages, the issue of access to effective palliative care is germane.

There is also an opportunity cost in the education of medical students, residents, and clinical fellows. Time spent in clinical environments in which there is no exposure to all medically-indicated treatments short-changes the trainees, meaning that the trainees have to seek the exposure during the times normally devoted to other training opportunities or forego training in the proscribed areas.
We sincerely hope that the University will not persevere to effectuate the agreement with Dignity Health.

Sincerely,

The Board of the UCSF Faculty Association
Member, Council of UC Faculty Associations

cc. University of California San Francisco Chancellor Hawgood
University of California President Napolitano

.

May 22, 2019
by operations
0 comments

Comments received in response to the UCSF Faculty Association survey concerning the UCSF/Dignity Health affiliation agreement

Because of the importance of the issue of the proposed affiliation between UCSF and Dignity Health,  we extended the two question survey that was initially sent just to Faculty Association members, to the entire UCSF faculty.  Over seven hundred faculty responded.   Twenty-seven percent of the faculty respondents support the affiliation, 10 percent take a neutral stance, while 63 percent oppose.  More than three-hundred faculty added comments on why they voted as they did.  Those comments are available on our website.

The comments are listed according to the position taken. We have also posted the letter that was sent to the faculty along with our survey.

Faculty who support the affiliation.

Faculty who oppose the affiliation.

Faculty who believe that we should avoid taking a position concerning the affiliation.

——————————————————————

Dear UCSF Faculty Members,

We recently surveyed the members of the UCSF Faculty Association about whether they supported, opposed, or held a neutral position on the proposed affiliation between UCSF and Dignity Health.  We’ve since been encouraged to have the rest of the faculty weigh in on this most important issue.  At the bottom of this email is a link to the one question survey.  In the paragraphs to follow is our introduction to this matter.  The paragraphs in support and opposition were written with the cooperation of those on both sides of the issue in order to cast this as fairly as possible.  For the record, while a quarter of our members who voted held a neutral position, three quarters of the rest opposed the affiliation agreement with Dignity Health.
———————————————————————
As you may know, UCSF is proposing to enter into an affiliation agreement with Dignity Health, a group of non-profit Catholic hospitals.  People within our membership who normally agree on most matters are on both sides of this issue.  With no clear cut consensus having emerged, we thought we’d ask you to vote on whether we as an organization should support or oppose the affiliation agreement between UCSF and Dignity Health, or merely abstain from taking a formal position.

The arguments in support of the agreement are that Dignity Health has the capacity to serve as a portal into UCSF’s specialty services while providing high quality care in emergency services and hospital admissions when UCSF is at or near capacity for both.  Further, Dignity Health has a far better track record than most large non-profit health care organizations in providing uncompensated care, accepting Medi-Cal patients, and treating patients from vulnerable backgrounds.  For those who are fearful that UCSF faculty will have to abide by the dictates of a Catholic Health Care organization, we have been assured that there will be no oaths to sign nor will there be a ban on counseling patients on where they may receive services not offered at Dignity Health for religious reasons.

The arguments in opposition of the agreement are that UC is providing its imprimatur to an organization that does not provide a full-range of reproductive health services to women, limits the scope of contraceptive services and counseling available to patients of all genders, and restricts the extent of end of life care.  Because students and residents would be doing rotations in these facilities, during the time of the rotations the education would be delimited by the services not available.  Beyond the practical effects on the services provided and educational opportunities forgone, UCSF as a State of California health care organization would be tacitly accepting that the limits placed by an organization run in accordance with Catholic principles do not clash with our mission to provide the fullest range of evidence-based care.

We ask that you vote on what our position should be and provide in the text fields some of the rationale for your decision.

The Board of the UCSF Faculty Association