New Affordable Care US health plans will exclude top hospitals

By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington for the Financial Times (link to original story)

December 8, 2013 5:51 pm

Americans who are buying insurance plans over online exchanges, under what is known as Obamacare, will have limited access to some of the nation’s leading hospitals, including two world-renowned cancer centres.

Amid a drive by insurers to limit costs, the majority of insurance plans being sold on the new healthcare exchanges in New York, Texas, and California, for example, will not offer patients’ access to Memorial Sloan Kettering in Manhattan or MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, two top cancer centres, or Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, one of the top research and teaching hospitals in the country.

Experts say the move by insurers to limit consumers’ choices and steer them away from hospitals that are considered too expensive, or even “inefficient”, reflects the new competitive landscape in the insurance industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare law.

It could become another source of political controversy for the Obama administration next year, when the plans take effect. Frustrated consumers could then begin to realise what is not always evident when buying a product as complicated as healthcare insurance: that their new plans do not cover many facilities or doctors “in network”. In other words, the facilities and doctors are not among the list of approved providers in a certain plan.

Under some US health insurance plans, consumers can elect to visit medical facilities that are “out of network”, but they would probably incur high out of pocket costs and may need referrals to prove that such care is medically necessary.  The development is worrying some hospital administrators who see the change as an unintended consequence of the ACA.

“We’re very concerned. [Insurers] know patients that are sick come to places like ours. What this is trying to do is redirect those patients elsewhere, but there is a reason why they come here. These patients need what it is that we are capable of providing,” says Thomas Priselac, president and chief executive officer of Cedars-Sinai Health System in California.

One of the biggest goals of “Obamacare” was to make subsidised healthcare plans that are being sold on the new exchanges as affordable as possible, while also mandating that certain benefits, like maternity care, were covered and that people with pre-existing medical conditions could not be denied access.

Amid these new regulatory restrictions, says Tim Jost, a health policy expert, insurance companies have had to come up with new ways to cut the cost of their products. In this new era, limiting the availability of certain facilities that are seen as too expensive – in part because they may attract the sickest patients or offer the most cutting edge medical care – is seen as the best way to control costs.

“It’s like buying a Mercedes-Benz or a Chevy. You have to decide whether you want to pay for the highest product out there, which is probably pretty good quality, or the less expensive product,” Mr Jost says. “Everyone is in favour of competition until they see what it looks like. Then they think, maybe it’s better for someone else just to pay for the whole thing.”

Kathleen Harrington, who heads government relations for the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, says that access to the famous clinic was initially limited in the Rochester, Minnesota area until officials at the healthcare exchange board in the state encouraged insurers to expand their network options.

While the Mayo Clinic will now be available on seven different plans offered by two different insurance carriers in Rochester, Ms Harrington says the long-term concern for the hospital is that intense focus on bringing down costs will hurt “centres of excellence” like Mayo that attract the most complicated medical cases in the country.

“I don’t think there is any doubt that a significant portion of the Mayo base are very sick patients. You don’t come here for primary care. We do treat the sickest of the sick. We do experimental treatment. This is where you come for innovative treatments for life threatening illnesses,” she says.

“If healthcare, the full spectrum from primary to top speciality care, becomes commoditised, it becomes a concern for the American healthcare system,” she adds.

When the Obama administration was asked whether the new healthcare exchanges were offering adequate network options to new consumers, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) emphasised that the new exchanges would “vastly increase” the access to medical providers to millions of uninsured Americans.

“Decisions about which private health insurance plans cover which doctors is a decision currently made by insurers and providers and will continue that way,” said an HHS spokeswoman.

The top lobby group for US health insurance plans, America’s Health Insurance Plans, said the new healthcare law brought “new costs” to the industry and that selecting hospitals and physicians that meet “quality standards” was one way of making health plans more affordable for consumers.

But Mr Priselac at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles says the creation of ever more narrow provider networks by insurers is being driven by price alone, and not by quality. He says the hospitals that are being excluded are leaders in innovation, which saves billions of dollars for the healthcare system in the long run.

“There is confusion between price and efficiency,” he says. “The major teaching and research hospitals are more expensive not because they are inefficient but because of what they do.”

Berkeley Chairs Letter in Support of Increased Graduate Student Support

Dear Dean Szeri:

As the new academic year begins, we have had time to reflect on the admissions process that has yielded this year’s new crop of Ph.D. students. While many Berkeley departments are at the top of the national rankings, we must continue to recruit the very best graduate students to maintain our rankings. Yet the competitiveness of our highly ranked Ph.D. programs greatly depends upon the level of graduate student stipends we can offer; in this regard we have increasingly fallen behind our peer institutions.  According to the most recent UCOP Graduate Student Support Survey, the gap between UC stipend offers for years one and two and those from ‘top-choice’ peer institutions grew between 2007 and 2010 to $2,697 and together with the higher cost of living at UC institutions created a total deficit of $4,978.  When surveyed, prospective graduate students consistently praise UC’s academic resources but admit being driven elsewhere by the higher cost of living and lower levels of financial support (http://www.ucop.edu/student-affairs/_files/gradsurvey_2010.pdf).  Since these figures reflect UC as a whole, and also date from 2010, the current gap between Berkeley campus and our rival institutions may well be even higher. The Report of the Taskforce on Competitiveness in Academic Graduate Student Support, adopted by UC Academic Council in June 2012, declares “rising tuition and uncompetitive stipends threaten to seriously undermine program quality” and asks that additional resources be allocated for net stipends for academic doctoral support (CAGSSGradCompetitivenessPaper_072012.pdf).

The GSI wage in particular is so low that our students often take more than one outside job to make ends meet in a high cost-of-living area, thereby retarding their time to degree, on which there are now normative, consequential caps. Currently the 10 month (49.5%) GSI stipend is $17,655 for an incoming student, though our campus financial aid office estimates that $21,608 is required to cover the cost of living for 9 months (http://students.berkeley.edu/finaid/home/cost.htm) while the campus desired target for doctoral students is $26,000. Our best students may come in with fellowships, but their income drastically falls as soon as they start teaching to levels that are sometimes nearly half that being provided at our rival private institutions. Greater consciousness of debt burdens and unfavorable academic job futures mean that talented Ph.D. students today are less and less willing to choose a school they may intellectually prefer over a school that provides more economic security. In order to keep attracting the best students, therefore, departments increasingly resort to topping up students' support during their teaching years by tapping the department’s own limited funds, which include the Graduate Division’s block grant award. If not for this practice of topping up, the reported gap between UC stipend offers and other top institutions cited in the UCOP Graduate Student Support Survey would be far greater. However, without a higher GSI base wage, departments have to finance graduate programs through scarce and unpredictable resources, which may, for some departments, be unsustainable in the long run.

The recruitment of the best students has become increasingly difficult given our financial disadvantage, and we are already worried about the next season. We believe higher GSI wages, along with a commensurate increase in TAS funds to cover increased salaries, will help to level the playing field, and cease to disadvantage our departments. We hope that Berkeley campus will be able to communicate to UCOP the importance of this issue to our academic distinction.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Berry
Chair, Anthropology

Steven Boggs
Chair, Physics

Benjamin Brinner
Chair, Music

Catherine Ceniza Choy
Chair, Ethnic Studies

Catherine Cole
Chair, Theater, Dance and Performance Studies

Marianne Constable
Chair, Rhetoric

Mark A. Csikszentmihalyi
East Asian Languages and Cultures

Penelope Edwards
Chair, South and Southeast Asian Studies

John Ferrari,
Chair, Classics

Deniz Gokturk
Chair, German

Joshua Goldstein
Chair, Demography

Richard Harland and David H. Raulet
Co-Chairs, Molecular and Cell Biology

John P. Huelsenbeck
Chair, Integrative Biology

Rich Ivry
Chair, Psychology

Phil Kaminsky
Industrial Engineering and Operations Research

Margaret Larkin
Chair, Department of Near Eastern Studies

John MacFarlane
Chair, Philosophy

Samer Madanat
Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering

Na’ilah Suad Nasir,
Chair, African American Studies

Ignacio Navarrete,
Chair, Spanish & Portuguese

Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe
Chair, English

Arthur Ogus,
Chair, Mathematics

James L. Powell
Chair, Economics

Raka Ray
Chair, Sociology

Juana Maria Rodriguez
Chair, Gender and Women’s Studies

Mark Sandberg
Chair, Scandinavian

Miryam Sas
Chair, Comparative Literature

Nathan Sayre
Chair, Geography

Eric Schickler
Chair, Political Science

Ethan Shagan,
Chair, History

Philip B. Stark
Chair, Statistics

Kristen Whissel
Chair, Film and Media

Hertha D. Sweet Wong
Chair, Art Practice


cc. Chancellor Nicholas Dirks
      EVCP George Breslauer
 

SB520--April 25, 2013 Version

Amended  IN  Senate  April 25, 2013

Amended  IN  Senate  April 17, 2013

Amended  IN  Senate  April 01, 2013

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2013–2014 REGULAR SESSION

Senate Bill

No. 520

---

Introduced  by  Senator Steinberg (Principal Coauthor(s): Assembly Member Garcia)

February 21, 2013

---

An act to amend Sections 78910.10 and 78910.30 of, and to add Section 66409.3 to, the Education Code, relating to student instruction.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 520, as amended, Steinberg. Student instruction: California Online Student Access Platform.

(1) The Donahoe Higher Education Act authorizes the activities of the 4 segments of the postsecondary education system in the state. These segments include the 3 public postsecondary segments: the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. Private and independent postsecondary educational institutions constitute the other segment.

Provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the regents act, by resolution, to make them applicable.

This bill would establish the California Online Student Access Platform under the administration of the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State University, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, jointly, with the academic senates of the respective segments. The bill would require the platform, among other things, to provide an efficient statewide mechanism for online course providers to offer transferable courses for credit and to create a pool of these online courses. The bill would require the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State University, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, jointly, with the academic senates of the respective segments, to develop a list of the 50 most impacted lower division courses, as defined, at the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges that are deemed necessary for program completion, or deemed satisfactory for meeting general education requirements, or in areas defined as high-demand transferable lower division courses under the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum and, for each of those 50 courses, to promote the availability of multiple high-quality. For these causes, the bill would require the president, chancellors, and senates to jointly facilitate certain intersegmental and intrasegmental partnerships and partnerships between online course technology providers and faculty of the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, as a method to achieve the goal of significantly increasing online course options, as specified options for students for the fall term of the 2014—15 academic year.

The bill would require the online courses approved by the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State University, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, jointly, with the academic senates of the respective segments, under the bill through the platform to be placed in the California Virtual Campus. The bill would require that matriculated students of campuses of the University of California, California State University, or California Community Colleges, and California high school pupils, who complete online courses developed through the platform and achieve a passing score on corresponding course examinations, be awarded full academic credit for an equivalent course at the University of California, the California State University, or the California Community Colleges, as applicable.

The bill would provide that funding for the implementation of this provision would be provided in the annual Budget Act, and express the intent of the Legislature that the receipt of funding by the University of California for the implementation of this provision be contingent on its compliance with its requirements. Because

The bill would prohibit public funds from being used to fund any private aspect of a partnership developed under the bill between faculty of the University of California, California State University, or the California Community Colleges and an online course technology provider. This bill would provide that the state would retain all appropriate rights to intellectual property it creates or develops in the implementation of the bill.

Because this provision would require community colleges to award academic credit under these circumstances, it would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(2) Existing law, until January 1, 2014, establishes the California Virtual Campus to facilitate ongoing collaboration and joint efforts relating to the use of technology resources and high-speed Internet connectivity to support teaching, learning, workforce development, and research. Existing law, until January 1, 2014, authorizes the California Virtual Campus grant recipient to convene at least 4 leadership stakeholder group meetings annually comprised of representatives from the State Department of Education, the California Technology Assistance Project, and other related programs administered through the department, including adult education, local education agencies, the California Community Colleges, the California State University, the University of California, independent colleges and universities, the California State Library, and representatives from community-based organizations to ensure the efforts affecting segments represented are appropriately meeting the needs of those segments.

This bill would extend the provisions establishing the California Virtual Campus until January 1, 2017. This bill would require the representatives in the stakeholder group meetings from the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California to include, but not be limited to, faculty members from these institutions. This bill would make additional nonsubstantive changes in these provisions. By requiring faculty members from community college districts to attend these meetings, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Digest Key

Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: YES  

---

Bill Text

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

 The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) In recent years, California’s public higher education institutions have faced skyrocketing demand for enrollment at a time when they lack capacity to provide students with access to courses necessary for program completion and success.

(b) In the 2012–13 academic year, 85 percent of California Community Colleges (CCC) reported having waiting lists for their fall 2012 course sections, with a statewide average of more than 7,000 students on waiting lists per college.

(c) Similarly, impacted courses have contributed significantly to difficulties within the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems, with figures indicating that only 60 percent and 16 percent of students, respectively, are able to earn a degree within four years, with lack of access to key courses a factor in increased time-to-degree.

(d) With rapidly developing innovation in online course delivery models, California’s public institutions of higher education have a unique opportunity to meet critical demands for enrollment and reduce time-to-degree by providing students with access to high-quality, alternative, online pathways to successfully complete and obtain credit for the most impacted lower division courses.

(e) California could significantly benefit from a statutorily enacted, quality-first, faculty-led framework that increases partnerships between faculty and online course technology providers aimed at allowing students in strategically selected lower division areas to take online courses for credit at the UC, CSU, and CCC systems. While providing easy access to these courses, these systems could also continually assess the value of the courses and the rates of student success in utilizing these alternative online pathways.

SEC. 2.

 Section 66409.3 is added to the Education Code, to read:

66409.3.

 (a) The California Online Student Access Platformis hereby established. The platform shall be developed and administered by the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State University, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, jointly, with the academic senates of the respective segments. As used in this section, “platform” means the California Online Student Access Platform established by this section.

(b) The platform shall solicit, develop, and promote facilitate appropriate partnerships including, but not necessarily limited to, intersegmental and intrasegmental partnerships developed pursuant to Section 66950 and partnerships between online course providers and faculty members of the University of California, California State University, and the California Community Colleges for the development and deployment of high-quality online options for strategically selected lower division courses. The platform shall accomplish all of the following objectives:

(1) Provide an efficient statewide mechanism for online course providers, in partnership with facilitation of intersegmental and intrasegmental partnerships developed pursuant to Section 66950 and appropriate partnerships between faculty members of the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, and online course technology providers to offer transferable courses for credit.

(2) Create a pool of up to 50 approved and transferable online courses for credit through which students seeking to enroll may easily access those courses and related content.

(3) Provide a state-level faculty-led process that places the highest priority on educational quality through which online courses can be subjected to high-quality standards and review.

(4) Allow the state, the public, students, faculty, and other stakeholders to examine student success rates within the platform.

(c) For purposes of accomplishing all of the objectives of the platform as specified in subdivision (b), the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State University, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, jointly, with the academic senates of the respective segments, shall do all of the following:

(1) (A) Develop a list of the 50 most impacted lower division courses at the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges that are deemed necessary for program completion , or deemed satisfactory for meeting general education requirements, or in areas defined as high-demand transferable lower division courses under the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum.

(B) For purposes of this paragraph, “impacted lower division course” means a course in which, during most academic terms, the number of students seeking to enroll in the course exceeds the number of spaces available in the course.

(2) (A)For each of the 50 courses For any of the courses that meet the criteria identified under paragraph (1), solicit and promote appropriate facilitate partnerships, including, but not necessarily limited to, intersegmental and intrasegmental partnerships developed pursuant to Section 66950 and partnerships between online course technology providers and faculty of the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges which, by with the goal of significantly increasing online course options for students for the fall term of the 2014–15 academic year, shall result in the availability of multiple high-quality online course options in which students may enroll in that term. year.

(B)An online course developed pursuant to this paragraph shall be deemed to meet the lower division transfer and degree requirements for the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges.

(3) Create and administer a standardized review and approval process for online courses in which most or all course instruction is delivered online developed pursuant to paragraph (2) for matriculated students of the University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges, or and for California high school pupils. No course shall be approved for purposes of this section unless the course has associated with it a faculty sponsor who is a member of the faculty of the University of California, the California State University, or the California Community Colleges and is approved by the academic senate of the appropriate segment. An online course developed pursuant to this paragraph shall be deemed to meet the lower division transfer and degree requirements for the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges.

(4) When online courses are reviewed pursuant to this section, at a minimum, the extent to which each course does the following shall be considered:

(A) Provides students with instructional support and related services to promote retention and success.

(B) Provides students with interaction with instructors and other students.

(C) Contains a proctored student assessment and examination process that ensures academic integrity and satisfactorily measures student learning.

(D) Provides a student with an opportunity to assess the extent to which he or she is suited for online learning prior to enrolling.

(E) Utilizes, as the primary course text or as a wholly acceptable alternative, content, where it exists, from the California Digital Open Source Library established pursuant to Section 66408.

(F) Includes adaptive learning technology systems or comparable technologies that can provide significant improvement in the learning of students.

(5) Regularly solicit and consider solicits from each of the respective statewide student associations of the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, and considers, advice and guidance on implementation of the platform.

(6) Collect, review, and make public data and other information related to student success within the platform by gathering and reporting data on accepted student success metrics, including, but not necessarily limited to, student enrollment in approved online courses through the platform, and student retention and completion rates.

(7) Utilize the state’s current common course numbering system for approved courses so as to simplify the identification and articulation of comparable courses.

(d) Online courses approved through the platform pursuant to this section shall be placed in the California Virtual Campus, through which students may access the courses. A matriculated student of a campus of the University of California, California State University, or California Community Colleges, or a California high school pupil, who completes an online course developed through the platform and achieves a passing score on the corresponding course examination shall be awarded full academic credit for an equivalent course at the University of California, the California State University, or the California Community Colleges, as applicable.

(e) Funding for the implementation of this section shall be provided in the annual Budget Act. It is the intent of the Legislature that, notwithstanding Section 67400, the receipt of funding by the University of California for the implementation of this section be contingent on its compliance with the requirements of this section.

(f) No public funds shall be used to fund any private aspect of a partnership developed pursuant to this section between faculty of the University of California, the California State University, or the California Community Colleges and an online course technology provider.

(g) The state shall retain all appropriate rights to intellectual property it creates or develops in the implementation of this section.

SEC. 3.

 Section 78910.10 of the Education Code is amended to read:

78910.10.

 (a) (1) The California Virtual Campus, pursuant to funding provided to the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges for this purpose in the annual Budget Act, may pursue all of the following purposes, to the extent funding is available:

(A) To enrich formal and informal educational experiences and improve students’ academic performance by supporting the development of highly engaging, research-based innovations in teaching and learning in K–12 public schools and the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California.

(B) To enhance the awareness of, and access to, highly engaging online courses of study, emphasizing courses of study that support a diverse and highly skilled science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce.

(C) To support education research, the implementation of research-based practices, and promote economic development through the use of next generation advanced network infrastructure, services, and network technologies that enable collaboration and resource sharing between formal and informal educators in K–12 public schools, the California Community Colleges, the California State University, the University of California, independent colleges and universities, public libraries, and community-based organizations at locations across the state.

(D) To increase access to next generation Internet services, 21st century workforce development programs, and e-government services for students and staff served or employed by education entities and students served primarily online through partnerships with public libraries and community-based organizations.

(E) To enhance access to health care education and training programs to current or future health care workers.

(F) To manage digital assets and develop contracts for services necessary to provide the technical and management support needed to maximize the benefits of the high-speed, high-bandwidth network infrastructure available to public higher education entities in California.

(G) Through the aggregation of demand for network enabled technologies and related services from public education entities, and through partnerships with the private sector, to provide education entities with access to technical support and staff who can facilitate statewide efforts that support innovations in teaching and learning that are necessary to provide for a well-educated citizenry, and economic and 21st century workforce development.

(2) To accomplish the purposes of paragraph (1), the California Virtual Campus may partner with local educational agencies, the State Department of Education, the 11 regional California Technology Assistance Projects, the California Community Colleges, the California State University, the University of California, independent colleges and universities, public libraries, and community-based organizations to facilitate ongoing collaboration and joint efforts relating to the use of technology resources and high-speed Internet connectivity to support teaching, learning, workforce development, and research.

(3) Efforts conducted as a result of this chapter shall not prohibit or otherwise exclude the ability of existing or new educational technology programs from being developed, expanded, or enhanced.

(b) For purposes of this article, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) “Online courses of study” means any of the following:

(A) Online teaching, learning, and research resources, including, but not necessarily limited to, books, course materials, video materials, interactive lessons, tests, or software, the copyrights of which have expired, or have been released with an intellectual property license that permits their free use or repurposing by others without the permission of the original authors or creators of the learning materials or resources.

(B) Professional development opportunities for formal and informal educators who desire to use the resources in subparagraph (A).

(C) Online instruction.

(2) “Online instruction” means technology enabled online real time (synchronous) interaction between the instructor and the student, near time (asynchronous) interaction between the instructor and the student, or any combination thereof.

(c) The California Virtual Campus grant recipient may accomplish all of the following:

(1) Convene at least four leadership stakeholder group meetings annually composed of representatives from the State Department of Education, the California Technology Assistance Project, and other related programs administered through the department, including adult education, local education agencies, the California Community Colleges, the California State University, the University of California, independent colleges and universities, the California State Library, and representatives from community-based organizations to ensure the efforts affecting segments represented are appropriately meeting the needs of those segments. The leadership stakeholder group shall also coordinate and obtain assistance with the implementation of efforts delineated in this article, to identify and maintain an up-to-date list of the technology resources and tools that are necessary to support innovation in teaching and learning, and to identify opportunities for leveraging resources and expertise for meeting those needs in an efficient and cost-effective manner. For purposes of this paragraph, the representatives from the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California shall include, but not be limited to, faculty members from these institutions.

(2) Lead efforts to make online courses of study available across the state that include, but are not limited to, the following:

(A) Developing online courses of study that are pedagogically sound and fully accessible, in compliance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336), by students with varying learning styles and disabilities.

(i) The development of K–12 online courses pursuant to this subparagraph shall be achieved in partnership with local education agencies and the California Technology Assistance Project.

(ii) Online courses developed for grades K–12 pursuant to this subparagraph shall be aligned to the California academic content standards and guidelines for online courses.

(B) Overseeing the development of at least 12 model online courses of study that, collectively, would allow students to meet the requirements of the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) and at least two courses that support basic skills education courses in English, English as a second language, or mathematics.

(C) Encouraging the entities listed in paragraph (1) to do both of the following:

(i) Make accessible to each other their courses of study that are funded by the state.

(ii) Allow their courses of study to be accessible to the general public if they determine access would not inhibit their ability to provide appropriate protection of the state’s intellectual property rights.

(3) Ensure that the learning objects created as part of the California Virtual Campus online courses of study with state General Fund revenues are linked to digital content libraries that include information about course content freely available to California educators and students.

(4) Develop formal partnership agreements between the entities listed in paragraph (1) and the California Virtual Campus, including course articulation agreements that allow qualified high school students to accelerate the completion of requirements for a high school diploma and a two-year or four-year degree and agreements that provide opportunities for part-time faculty teaching online to obtain full-time employment teaching online.

(5) Develop formal partnership agreements with the entities listed in paragraph (1) and others to enhance access to professional development courses that introduce faculty, teachers, staff, and college course developers to the conceptual development, creation, and production methodologies that underlie the development of online courses of study and support students’ successful completion of those courses. The professional development opportunities may include, but not necessarily be limited to, all of the following:

(A) Addressing issues relating to copyright, permission for the use or reuse of material, use of resources in the public domain, and other intellectual property concepts.

(B) Accessibility for students with disabilities.

(C) Factors to ensure that content is culturally relevant to a diverse student body.

(D) Delivery options that incorporate multiple learning styles and strategies.

(6) Develop formal partnership agreements with entities, including, but not limited to, those listed in paragraph (1), to ensure access to online professional learning communities that incorporate the use of Internet-based collaboration tools and to support joint discussions between K–12 educators, higher education faculty and staff, and others to examine student performance data, student learning objectives, curriculum, and other issues that relate to students’ academic success and preparation for the workforce.

(7) In partnership with entities, including those listed in paragraph (1), develop an e-portfolio system that allows participating students to demonstrate their attainment of academic learning objectives, skills and knowledge that relate to their career interests, and completion of prerequisites for participation in courses or training programs. The e-portfolio system may do all of the following:

(A) Ensure that student privacy is protected in accordance with existing law.

(B) Comply with accessibility laws for students with disabilities.

(C) Be designed in a manner that supports the use of e-portfolio content in the accreditation requirements of schools, colleges, and universities.

(8) In partnership with entities, including those listed in paragraph (1), identify opportunities to enhance students’ access to medical education and medical services through the use of high-speed Internet connections to the campuses, and opportunities for education programs and services to support the telehealth efforts taking place within the state.

(d) The lead agency for the California Virtual Campus, in consultation with the leadership stakeholder group described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) if that group is convened by the California Virtual Campus grant recipient, shall contract with an independent third party with expertise in online teaching, learning, and the development of online courses of study, as approved by the board, to evaluate the California Virtual Campus. The evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, an assessment of the number of faculty, teachers, consortia, informal educators, and students that use the online courses of study, the quality of students’ experiences, student grades earned, and the cost of the online course content, comparing the online course content with traditional textbooks. The board may require additional information that it determines to be necessary to evaluate the effectiveness and viability of the California Virtual Campus. This evaluation shall be submitted to the Legislature no later than three years after the enactment of this act.

SEC. 4.

 Section 78910.30 of the Education Code is amended to read:

78910.30.

 This article shall remain in effect until January 1, 2017, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2017, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 5.

 If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

Difference Between Revenue and Direct Expenses by College ASU 2010

Indirect Cost Recovery Shortfall Chart circa 2004

Brown's Higher Ed Framework (April, 2013)

Governor’s Higher Education Plan

Overview

Statement of Problem

There are multiple signs that our higher education system is facing a crisis.

• At UC, costs are rising much faster than inflation.
• At CSU, few students are graduating in four years.
•  In CCCs, thousands are turned away and relatively few are making it through a complete
• program of study or successfully transferring.
• Overall, there is no systemwide consensus regarding higher education’s purpose, goals, and overall direction.

Financially, the state isn’t out of the woods yet.

• The Governor’s budget prioritizes higher education. Many other services have also faced big cuts in recent years and will see no increases this year. We need to make the most of every higher education dollar we spend. 
• Everyone must do their part: taxpayers, students, and university officials who need to find solutions other than tuition increases to balance their budgets.

Student tuition should not be the go-to budget balancer.

• Student aid doesn’t fix the problem: it helps individual students but masks the underlying problem of higher education costs that are rising too fast.
• Every tuition increase reduces access and increases student debt. It’s also a quality issue when it disrupts students’ progress or forces them to work more while they go to school.
• Tuition hikes also hurt middle class students who didn’t expect the increase and don’t qualify for much aid.

Governor’s goals for higher education

• Improve quality and performance of the system. Students who want to complete college in four years should be able to do so. College education should be relevant to students and enable them to thrive in their career and life after graduation.

• Reinvent higher education system for today’s world and the future. We can’t simply maintain the 20th century university                 

                o Fiscal realities limit all of us, but it’s our creativity that allows us to adapt to and thrive within our limits.  Universities  are extraordinarily resilient institutions, because they are full of smart people. We’re excited about the challenge and promise of building a 21st century university.

• Control the cost of higher education so that it stays affordable for students and the state. Yes, the Governor realizes that California’s tuition and student debt levels are not as high as those in other states. His aim is to:o Provide students some relief after back-to-back years of tuition increases
  o Stop using student tuition to prop up an unsustainable business model
  o Avoid the sky-high debt and tuition levels found in others states

Basic elements of the plan:

• Up to a 20% increase in General Fund appropriations to UC and CSU over a four-year period (2013-14 through 2016-17), representing about a 10% increase in total operating funds.*
• Freeze on UC and CSU resident tuition from 2013-14 to 2016-17. If a segment raises tuition during any of those years, its cumulative funding augmentation beginning in 2013-14 will be forfeited and cannot be earned back.
• For UC and CSU, funding augmentations will be contingent on progress made toward the following goals. (Note: the latest values for the performance measures will be updated this fall to reflect actual 2011-12 values, which will serve as the base year):

o Ten percent improvement of on-time graduation rates by 2016-17 (meaning 4 years for freshmen and 2 years for transfer students).

•  For UC freshmen, an increase from about 62 to about 68%.
•  For CSU freshmen, an increase from about 16 to about 18%.
•  For UC transfers, an increase from about 53 to about 59%.
•  For CSU transfers, an increase from about 23 to about 26%.

o Ten percent increase in the number of transfer students UC and CSU enroll from the community colleges by 2016-17.

•  At UC, an increase from about 15,800 to about 17,400 annually.
•  At CSU, an increase from about 37,200 to about 40,900 annually.

o Ten percent increase in the number of degrees completed by 2016-17 for:

•  First-time freshmen
•  Transfer students
•  Pell Grant recipients (both freshmen and transfers)

o Ten percent improvement in undergraduate degree completions per 100 full-time equivalent enrolled students by 2016-17, to capture improvements in efficiency.

• Flexibility

o If a segment partially meets its targets, it will still receive a proportional share of its planned funding augmentation.

o Additionally, segments can recoup any funding lost by missing an interim target if they fully meet a subsequent year’s target, up through 2016-17.

o Segments will be expected to show 1%, 3%, and 6% improvement on each of the outcome measures in the first three years of the plan, respectively, or the segments may propose alternative interim measures and targets provided they can

show those interim measures build to the same overall 10% targets in 2016-17.

• Universities will report annually on progress made toward the targets, biennially on spending on graduate versus undergraduate instruction and research, and on any additional measures that are deemed appropriate for tracking effects on educational quality and service to disadvantaged students.

*A note on community colleges: CCCs will also receive commensurate funding increases over

the four year term of the funding plan. Corresponding performance measures for CCCs will be

developed later this year and introduced in the Governor’s 2014-15 Budget proposal.

Anticipated questions

What is the rationale for the 10 percent improvement targets?

• The targets are set at 10 percent because universities’ operating funds (General Fund and tuition and fee revenue) will increase by about 10 percent. It provides a simple goal to unify the system.
• Certainly, some targets will be easier to hit than others – that is the rationale for multiple measures and pro-rated funding increases. Remember: a segment will be rewarded for any progress it makes toward any of the targets at any point during the timeframe of the plan.
• The performance targets we have set are high, but they are flexible and we feel they are completely achievable.

Universities are trying to rebuild after years of cuts – why raise the bar now?

• It’s true that cuts have been severe, but the baseline year was the low point and follows a decade of volatile budgets.o If the measures are affected by the budget they should be at their worst in the baseline year, 2011-12.

• This is exactly the right time to ask universities to raise the bar.o Taxpayers voted to put more money into higher education.
  o Rather than restoring the same costly structures that have proven unsustainable,the new money should go toward building a smarter university model that provides quality education and ongoing affordability.

UC and CSU are different systems with different challenges – why the same outcome measures and targets for both?

• Both segments need to improve their cost efficiency as an integral part of their ability toprovide a high-quality education without continually increasing the financial burden placed on students through tuition and fees.
• However, UC and CSU have different challenges and will make progress in different ways.o CSU has comparatively low spending per degree and completion, but needs to improve completion rates. It can become more efficient by increasing its overall through-put and reducing the number of excess units per degree completion.
  
  o UC has comparatively strong completion rates but very high cost per degree and a steep rate of spending increases from year to year. It can become more efficient by holding tuition constant and findi ng other ways to balance its budget—namelyby reducing costs. 

• Yes, some targets will be easier or harder for each system to meet. However, we believe that the collection of targets—paired with the requirement to freeze tuition—will be comparably challenging for the two systems. 
  

Won’t the focus on completion pressure the universities to lower their academic standards?

• There are appropriate checks and balances in place to prevent an erosion of quality: academic senates, accreditation procedures, and feedback from students and employers have long been the universities’ approach to upholding quality.
• These existing quality-control measures should be refined and strengthened, rather than introducing standardized testing, artificial numeric indices, or other kinds of scores or rankings.

How can UC and CSU control the number of transfers who are ready to enroll?

• UC and CSU are expected to work closely with CCCs to align lower and upper-division coursework and create clear transfer pathways for students that enable them to graduate on time, without accumulating excessive extra units.
• Funding increases for CCCs should lead to corresponding increases in the number of transfer-ready students.

Profile for a 21st Century Presidency at NYU

The American Association of University Professors is the originator and steward of the basic principles of governance and academic freedom observed by U.S. universities. Inspired by the Vote of No Confidence process set in motion by NYU's Faculty of Arts and Science, we offer the following list of requisites for a 21st century presidency at NYU.

New York University, as one of the nation’s leading universities, needs a president who is deeply committed to

1.      The Ethos and Practice of Shared Governance

      and who therefore supports

a.       the right and obligation of faculty to define and shape all new academic and curricular initiatives, including those at global locations

b.      the right and obligation of faculty to be represented on the Board of Trustees

c.       the right and obligation of faculty to participate fully in the choosing of new presidents and provosts

d.      the right and obligation of faculty to serve, as elected representatives, not as ad hoc appointees, on top level committees

e.       the right and obligation of faculty to hold regular, plenary assemblies with the president and senior administrators in order to voice concerns and present new initiatives

f.       the right and obligation of faculty to have full knowledge of the fiscal affairs of the university

g.      the right and obligation of faculty to review and participate in the approval of all new building and expansion plans

h.      the right of faculty, should a majority so decide, to union representation and collective bargaining

2.      The Institutional Protections of Tenure and Academic Freedom for Faculty

      and who therefore supports

a.       the steady conversion of NTT into TT faculty positions at every NYU location 

b.      the extension of protections comparable to those that accrue to tenure to all fulltime faculty who have served continuously for seven years,

c.       the upholding of academic freedom among all faculty, including those not on the tenure track 

d.      the careful protection of academic freedoms through contracts and intellectual property regulations relating to commercialization of university research

3.      The Principle of Making an NYU Education Affordable to All Students
and who therefore supports

a.       the right and obligation of student representatives to participate in a university-wide plan to reduce the student debt burden by expanding needs-based financial aid

b.      the right and obligation of students to be represented on the Board of Trustees

c.       the right and obligation of students to have full knowledge of the fiscal affairs of the university

d.      a moratorium on the growth of non-academic personnel, offices, programs, and costs that are extraneous to core academic functions. 

4.      The Cultivation of Mutually Respectful Town-Gown Relations
and who therefore supports

a.       the right and obligation of community representatives to review and participate in the approval of all new building and expansion plans

b.      the right and obligation of community representatives to serve on a committee for developing university-community initiatives that will benefit from NYU’s research and resources

5.      The Abatement of Salary Polarization

      and who therefore supports

a.       the reduction, by at least 25%, of the salaries of the president and senior administrators

b.      the establishment of a more equitable range spread between the highest and lowest paid of NYU employees 

c.       a suspension of the practice of passing on the costs of benefits spending to employees 

6.      The Upholding of Fair Labor Standards for All University Employees
and who therefore supports       

a.       the right of all employees, including graduate student employees, should a majority so decide, to union representation and collective bargaining.

b.      the right of employee union representatives to expect good faith in collective bargaining from the NYU administration

c.       the right of all employees, including those contracted to construct and maintain GNU buildings, to be protected by the ILO's basic international labor standards.

Andrew Ross, NYU-AAUP president

Molly Nolan, NYU-AAUP vice-president

Marie Monaco, NYU-AAUP secretary

Anna McCarthy, NYU-AAUP treasurer

Rebecca Karl, NYU-AAUP at-large executive member

Rana Jaleel, NYU-AAUP student member