reminder: leadership group meetings are confidential -...
TRANSCRIPT
Reminder: Leadership Group meetings are confidential
Working Council
Thursday, Sept. 3, 2015 Santa Clara University
Learning Commons Building, St. Clare Room
500 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95053
PRELIMINARY DRAFT AGENDA
7:30 a.m. Coffee & Conversation
8:00 a.m. Call to Order & Meeting Confidentiality Reminder –
Welcome and Introductions
Welcome to new Member Company Representatives
Welcome and Introductions New Colleagues
President's Report
Game Changers 2016 @ Computer History Museum – September 24
Fall DC Trip – September 29 – October 1
Applied Materials Silicon Valley Turkey Trot - Fairchild Semiconductor Fittest Firm
Competition
Red Tape into Red Carpet – Deadline, September 30
Leadership Group Annual Strategy Conference @ LinkedIn – October 14
Annual Public Policy Luncheon @ Santa Clara Convention Center – October 30
Grid of the Future @ Hitachi Data Systems, November 12
Discussion / Action Items
Leadership Group's Work Plan 2016-2018- Sustainable Path Forward
Revenue Model Options
Consent Items
Approval of the Meeting Minutes: August 3, 2015 Working Council Meeting
SBX1-12 (Runner) - CTC as independent entity- Committee Recommendation: Support
SBX1-13 (Vidak) - Creates an Inspector General for Caltrans and the High Speed Rail
Authority- Committee Recommendation: Support
Guest Speakers (time certain)
Speakers invited to discuss City of San Jose Rent Control/Stabilization (TBD)
Action Items
City of San Jose Rent Control/Stabilization - Committee Recommendation: Support
SB 260 (Monning) - Consumer Protections for County Organized Health System –
Committee Recommendation: Support
Potential 2016 Measure Status Update
2015 Home Run Goal Updates 1-minute reports on top item in each portfolio area
Energy - Transportation Tax Policy -
Education - Government Relations Health –
Environment Housing & Land Use-
Community - Technology Policy -
10:15 a.m. Adjournment
Next Meeting: November 5, 2015 @ Santa Clara University
2015 Working Council Meeting Schedule
January 8
February 5
March 5
April 2
May 7
June 4
July 9
August 3
September 3
October 14 Strategy Conference*
November 5
December 3
* NOTE: Strategy Conference, October 14, 2015 @ LinkedIn in Sunnyvale
Working Council
Monday, August 3, 2015
3:30 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.
San Jose Giants Municipal Stadium
588 E. Alma Ave., San Jose, CA
Members Present:
Erin Brennock, Synopsys, Chair
Jeff Rangel, Brocade, Vice-Chair
Dana Rivera, Accela
Jason Lundgaard, Apple
Sara Broadbent, Avaya
David Kramer, Blach Construction
Gina Balestin, Bridgelux
Chris Schwarz, Canyon Snow Consulting
Anne Smart, ChargePoint
Mike Potter, Cisco
Mona Tierney-Lloyd, EnerNOC
Jennifer Chamberlain, Johnson Controls
Ashley Howell, Lockheed Martin Space Systems
Sherri Sager, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital-Stanford
Allison Darin, Nexenta
Jessy Borges, PG&E
Mila Zelkha, Palantir
Jennifer Adams, Plantronics
Ron Gonzales, Presencia
Steven Shee, SanDisk
Stacy Gleixner, San Jose State University
Forrest Monroy, Seagate
Chris Roth, Silicon Valley Bank
Craig Robinson, Silicon Valley Bank
Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Francesca Wahl, SolarCity
Maya Biery, SunEdison
Erick Karlen, Sungevity, Inc.
Blair Swezey, SunPower
Susan Glick, SunRun
Janikke Klem, Technology Credit Union
Michelle Moskowitz, UC Berkeley
Jenelle Shapiro, Webcor Builders
Jim Pascoe, Western Digital Corp.
Jim Davis, Xovertime
Staff Present:
Casey Beyer Emily Lam Kristina Perlata
Brian Brennan Peter Leroe-Munoz Juan Quinones
Paul Escobar Tim McRae Sarah Qureshi
Alex Felton Judith Miranda Nancy Sanchez
Catharine Ingram Amanda Montez Eddie Truong
Grace Kay Zoe Mullendore
AGENDA
Erin Brennock called the meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. and reminded the group participants of
meeting discussion confidentiality so that people could speak candidly. Dan Orun welcomed
everyone to the San Jose Giants stadium. Self-introductions followed. Welcome to one new LR:
Mila Zelkha, Palantir.
President's Report
Education Summit @ Microsoft, August 28, 7:15am-12:00 p.m. “Innovation and Equity” The confirmed
panelists include Michael Kirst: President, California State Board of Education; Muhammed Chaudry:
President & CEO, Silicon Valley Education Foundation; Elizabeth Slavitt: Lead of Content and
Scaling, Khan Academy; Jay Banfield: Executive Director, Year UP Bay Area; Kimberly Bryant:
Founder, Black Girls Code; Matt Hammer: Executive Director, Innovate Public Schools. Clipboards
were passed. For more information contact Kristina Peralta, [email protected] or (408) 501-7864.
Game Changers 2016 @ Computer History Museum, September 24, 8:00am-12:00pm. Join us for 5th
annual Game Changers 2016 with featured speakers including Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins and
Assembly Republican Leader Kristin Olsen. They will be joined by business and civic leaders in
discussing solutions to the “3Ds” of Silicon Valley: Diversifying the STEM Pipeline, Disruptive
Technologies, and Drought – The Way Out. Early bird registration until August 16. Sponsorships
available. Clipboards were passed. For more information contact Catharine Ingram,
[email protected] or (408) 453-4753.
Annual Fall DC Advocacy Trip, Sept. 29-Oct. 1, Policy Priorities: Trans-Pacific Partnership, BART 2.0
and Caltrain Funding, Patent Litigation Reform, Immigration Reform, Business Tax Reform,
Cybersecurity and Science and Research Funding. Clipboards were passed. For more information
contact Grace Kay, [email protected] or (408) 501-7881.
Leadership Group Annual Strategy Conference, October 14 @ LinkedIn, Sunnyvale. Meet with
member company representatives to discuss strategy for the revolving three year work plan for
2016-2018. For information contact Brian Brennan, [email protected] or (408) 501-7864.
USPTO Regional Office Opening Celebration @ (tentatively SJ Airport) – October 15. Featuring an
Innovators Showcase of Tomorrow’s Technology Today. Be part of the celebration of our region’s
innovation and entrepreneurship. Clipboards were passed. For more information contact Emily
Lam, [email protected] or Catharine Ingram, [email protected] or (408) 453-4753.
Discussion/Action Item
Leadership Group Branding Survey Results (Information only) Carl Guardino explained the
Leadership Group Branding Survey Results potential 2016 Transportation Funding Measure Poll. The
Branding Survey results will be presented to the Q3 SVLG Board Meeting on September 10, 2015.
During the last transportation measure in 2008 the SVLG name was attacked and did not respond to
the attacks. This time SVLG would like to be prepared with the possible future 2016 transportation
measure approaching. We have initiated with 4 CMOs to serve for 1-3 meetings on a Leadership
Group “Public Perception Task Force.”
Leadership Group’s Sustainable Work Plan 2016-2018 – A Sustainable Path Forward – Strategically
reduced our Work Plan in past 120 days. It was completed at the Q2 Board Meeting on June 11.
The internal organization chart was reconfigured. The best internal structure to strengthen our team
and provide the best office culture possible to accomplish our goals was completed by July 1. The
Events Criteria Review objective: There should be a clear policy, project or relationship objective to
the event. Since certain events were eliminated from the work plan another revenue model was
proposed.
Brian Brennan explained the current revenue structure and the strategic realignment process. Two
different proposals were discussed including a “Tiered Membership Model and the second model
was a “Board-Focused Model.”
Action Items
SB 350 – (DeLeon) – The 50/5/50 Energy Proposal -- Mona Tierney-Lloyd reported the bill sets large
goals for 2030 in petroleum reduction, energy efficiency, and powering the grid with renewables.
The path to achieving those goals recently was fleshed out further in recent versions of the bill. The
legislature will take one last round of amendments in late August, then vote up or down on the bill at
the end of the session. Mona Tierney-Lloyd made the motion by the Energy committee to support
the bill if amended. Motion passed 21yes votes, 0 no vote and 8 abstention votes.
AB 793 - (Quirk) – Energy Management Technologies – Energy efficiency (EE) program
administrators advance EE goals through promotion and use of energy management tech. Jim
Davis made the recommendation by the Energy committee to support the bill. Motion passed by 21
yes votes, 0 no votes, 5 abstentions.
AB 1330 (Bloom) – Energy Efficiency Resource Standard Act – Jim Davis reported this bill will establish
an annual Energy Efficiency Standard. The top priority in driving energy savings and reducing
emissions. Jim Davis made the recommendation from the Energy committee to support the bill.
Motion passed with 20 yes votes, 1 no vote, 4 abstention votes.
AB 802 (Williams) – Public Utilities: Energy Efficiency Savings – Jim Davis reported this bill will allow
investor-owned electrical or gas utilities (IOUs) would be able to recover, in rates, the cost of
programs to bring a building up to legal code and to count all energy savings achieved toward the
corporation’s energy efficiency (EE) targets. Motion passed with 26 yes votes, 0 no votes, 2
abstention votes.
Homelessness 2015-2017 Housing & Land Use Work Plan – David Kramer reported the Leadership
Group did not receive the grant from the National Center on Employment and Homelessness that
we had applied for with our partners; Destination Home and Work2Future. The action
recommendation is to remove Homelessness from the current Work Plan and specifically including
advocacy of proposals designed to house homeless individuals in the next Work Plan. Motion made
by Craig Robinson passed 22 yes votes, 0 no votes, 1 abstention vote.
Consent Items
All of the consent items were approved with an amendment deleting the comment from Jeff
Rangel regarding the Homelessness box in the July 9, 2105 Working Council Meeting minutes.
Motion to pass by Mike Potter, Cisco, and seconded by Sherri Sager, Lucile Packard Children’s
Hospital, Stanford. Motion passed by voice vote, 0 no votes, 1 abstention.
Next Working Council Meeting Thursday, September 3, 2015 @ Santa Clara University, Learning
Commons Building, St. Clare Room, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053
Time of adjournment: 5:13 pm
DRAFT – 8/25/2015
DATE: 8/27/2015 FROM: Carl Guardino TO: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Board of Directors RE: Proposed Reduction in Number of Leadership Group Events
Summary: The Silicon Valley Leadership Group’s Board of Directors has over time encouraged the organization to be mindful of the number of events we do, out of consideration for their impacts on both member companies and Leadership Group staff. To enhance our public policy work and reduce the burden of event production on our team, the Leadership Group is proposing to eliminate 3 of its 13 major events in 2016, and to fill the resultant revenue gap with a contribution from members of our board of directors. Context: Over the last 20 years, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group has worked to diversify its funding sources, in order to move from a near total reliance on membership dues to a model that balances dues with revenue from events and miscellaneous programs and projects. In 2015, the Leadership Group produced 13 “signature events”, netting from them $1,110,000, or 28.5% of the Leadership Group’s 2015 $3.7M budget.i The balance of the organization’s revenue comes primarily from membership dues (63%), as well as some grants and revenue from smaller events and programs. Proposed Event Reduction: Following a review of the policy and revenue return on each of the Leadership Group’s signature events in 2015 (event list attached for reference), as well as the resources required to produce each, we are proposing to eliminate three events:
Transportation alternatives and auto technologies event
Workplace wellness event
Cybersecurity event
Rationale: The goals of our proposal are threefold:
To increase the public policy value that our members derive from our work, by reallocating staff resources from event planning/execution to direct public policy.
To reduce the number of sponsorship and event attendance asks of our members over the course of a year without increasing membership dues.
To make the pace of planning and executing events sustainable for Leadership Group staff and our members.
Filling the Revenue Gap – Alternatives: While we believe this reduction in the number of Leadership Group events is important for the reasons noted above, we do need to address the revenue gap that opens up as a result. Here we outline two potential courses of action: Recommendation: That we ask Members of our Board of Directors to purchase either an Annual Luncheon “Premium Pillar” Sponsorship ($11,000 – for companies with >$1B in revenues) or a “Premium Table” Sponsorship ($6,000 – for companies with <$1B in revenues). This would constitute an increase
in the expected level of luncheon support of $4,000 for Board members from larger companies and $2,100 for members from smaller companies.
Projected additional revenue: $117K-142K
Argument in favor:
Board members derive meaningful value from their board seats.
Resultant income is relatively predictable.
No additional staff time required.
Argument against:
The Leadership Group Board Members already make meaningful contributions to the organization, financial and otherwise.
There might be some Board attrition if the increased cost is beyond the comfort zone of some board members.
Alternative Approach: That we shift to a tiered membership model similar to other organizations, in which members might be “Silver”, “Gold”, or “Platinum” level members, with different costs and benefits associated with each level.
Projected additional revenue: Difficult to estimate, given number of variables involved
Argument in favor:
The new costs would be born entirely on an opt-in basis.
This model is familiar to many of our members.
Argument against:
Revenue yield is unclear.
Would require significant staff time to “sell” the new structure and benefits
2015 Silicon Valley Leadership Group “Signature Events” (with 2015 net event revenue):
1. Annual Luncheon - $500,000 2. CEO Business Climate Summit - $50,000 3. Cybersecurity - $50,000 (To drop in 2016) 4. Driving Charged - $40,000 (To drop in 2016) 5. Education Summit - $50,000 6. Energy & Sustainability - $75,000 7. Game Changers - $80,000 8. Grid of the Future - $65,000 9. Red Tape to Red Carpet - $50,000 10. Regional Economic Forum - $50,000 11. Workplace Wellness - $10,000 (To drop in 2016) 12. Young Men's Leadership Summit - $50,000 13. Young Women's Leadership Summit - $50,000
i Signature events, for these purposes, are large (>150 guests; >$50,000 net revenue
i), multifaceted (3+ hours in
duration; 3+panels) events that do not include Leadership Group process meetings (e.g. board meetings) or advocacy activities (e.g. trips to Washington/Sacramento).
DATE: August 25, 2015
TO: Working Council
FROM: Transportation Policy Committee (pending 9/2 committee meeting)
SUBJECT: SBx1-12 (Runner): California Transportation Commission.
ACTION
The Transportation Policy Committee (pending 9/2 meeting) recommends a support
position on SBx1-12 (Runner), which would make the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) an independent agency and transfer responsibility for the State
Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) from the state Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to the CTC.
BACKGROUND
California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) includes various departments and state
entities, including the Caltrans and the CTC.
SHOPP is a program of Caltrans to develop major capital projects necessary to preserve
and protect the state highway system, excluding projects that add new traffic lanes.
Caltrans is required to consult with the CTC to develop an asset management plan to
guide development of the SHOPP. To be specific, responsibilities of the CTC in the
SHOPP include:
a. Adopt related targets and performance measures that reflect state policy goals
and objective.
b. Review and approve the final asset management plan based on specific project
information provided by Caltrans, including the capital and support budget for
each project, the projected delivery date and quarterly reports of budget and
expenditures.
c. Adopt the SHOPP, or decline to adopt if it determines that the program is not
sufficiently consistent with the asset management plan.
This bill would:
1) Move the CTC out of CalSTA and make it an independent agency.
2) Maintain responsibility of Caltrans to prepare the SHOPP, including allocating funds
to capital outlay support for each project.
3) Maintain the existing law requirement for the CTC the review the SHOPP.
4) Provide that the CTC is not required to approve the program in its entirety, as
submitted by the department, and may approve or reject individual projects
programmed by Caltran.
5) Require Caltrans to submit any changes in the cost, scope, or schedule of a project
in the SHOPP to the CTC for approval prior to implementing the changes.
ANALYSIS
California spends more than three times the national average per mile on the road, but
the state highway system ranks 45th in the nation in overall performance and cost-
effectiveness. Besides, California faces an estimated shortfall of $59 billion over the next
10 years to adequately maintain and repair the state’s highway system. This bill tends to
spend existing highway funds appropriately and as efficiently as possible without
increasing taxes and fees to generate new revenues for the state’s transportation
infrastructure.
SBx1-12 brings more accountability and transparency to the delivery of transportation
projects by making the CTC an independent oversight role and giving it the power to
approve individual repair and maintenance projects. This bill will ensure that Caltrans is
putting its resources into the top priority projects and achieving its efficiency goals and
will give CTC the ability to ensure that states plans and priorities are implemented.
Prior to the establishment of CalSTA, the CTC was not under the purview of any agency.
CTC’s independence was diminished by incorporating the CTC into CalSTA. Even so,
CTC is reviewed as an independent voice in reviewing and approving the SHOPP and
act as an important agent for regional planning agencies and self-help counties to
appeal disagreements with Caltrans. This bill would once again make the CTC a stand-
alone entity.
SB 486 (DeSaulnier) approved in 2014 authorizes the CTC to “review and approve” the
SHOPP and provides that the CTC may decline to adopt the SHOPP if CTC determines
that it is not sufficiently consistent with the asset management plan. SBx1-12 would allow
CTC to simply reject individual projects in the SHOPP rather that turning down the entire
program, which would speed up the process by avoiding sending the SHOPP back to
Caltrans for revisions.
The Leadership Group supports policies that increases efficiency and accountability of
transportation programs and improves California’s transportation health. We ask the
Transportation Policy Committee to consider a support position on SBx1-12 (Runner).
SUPPORTERS
None received
OPPONENTS
Sierra Club California
DATE: August 25, 2015
TO: Working Council
FROM: Transportation Policy Committee (pending 9/2 meeting)
SUBJECT: SBx1-13 (Vidak): Office of the Transportation Inspector General
ACTION
The Transportation Policy Committee (pending 9/2 meeting) recommends a support
position on SBx1-13 (Vidak), which would create the Office of the Transportation
Inspector General (OTIG) in state government as an independent office, to ensure that
all state agencies expending state transportation funds are operating efficiently,
effectively, and in compliance with federal and state laws.
BACKGROUND
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA), and
other transportation state agencies are tasked with spending billions of dollars every
year ($11.4 billion according to the Governor’s Budget of 2015-16), and it is important
that the transportation funds are being used efficiently.
This bill would create the Office of the Transportation Inspector General in state
government as an independent office and require the Governor to appoint the
Transportation Inspector General (TIG) to a six-year term, subject to Senate confirmation,
and would provide that the TIG may not be removed from office during the term
except for good cause. TIG’s responsibilities include, but not limited to:
a. Review policies, practices, and procedures, and conduct audits and investigations
of activities involving state transportation funds in consultation with all affected state
agencies.
b. Report annually to the Governor and Legislature with a summary of their findings,
investigations, and audits, including significant problems and recommendations.
c. Develop a methodology, in consultation with the Department of Finance, for
producing a workload budget to be used for annually adjusting the budget of the
OTIG. Funding for the office shall, to the extent possible, be from federal
transportation funds, with other necessary funding to be made available from the
State Highway Account and an account from which high-speed rail activities may
be funded.
ANALYSIS
There have been examples within Caltrans of waste, fraud, and inefficiencies. The
California State Auditor’s report of projects that completed construction in fiscal years
(FY) 2007-08 through 2009-10 indicated that 62% of the projects had support costs that
exceeded their respective budgets. This represented more than $305 million overruns of
the $1.4 billion in total support project budgets.
As an independent oversight role, OTIG will help to root our waste, improve
opportunities for efficiency, highlight best practices, and find opportunities to improve
funds allocations.
SB 878 introduced by Senator DeSaulnier in 2011 was vetoed by the Governor Brown.
The bill would have established an independent OTIG to oversee Caltrans, HSRA, and
all other state, regional, and local agencies expanding state transportation funds. The
Governor concerned that Caltrans and local transportation agencies are already
subject to performance review and fiscal audits and it would create a new costly state
office.
Senator Vidak believes that OTIG is different from the existing oversight options such as
the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, and the Transportation
Committees of the Legislature. OTIG will be self-directed and will be authorized to
investigate and recommend solutions to problems of which the Legislature may not be
aware or which may be sensitive or controversial. Being focused solely on expenditures
of state transportation resources, OTIG should be able to delve deeper into problems
and propose more comprehensive solutions.
The Federal Inspector General has shown successful experience and significant return
on investment based on completed work over the last five years. Each year, there were
average of 45 indictments, 37 convictions and a total of almost $173 million in fines,
restitutions, and recoveries.
California has limited transportation funding. The funding we have must be used as
efficiently as possible. The Leadership Group supports policies that decrease waste and
increase efficiency of using transportation funds. We suggest a support position on SBx1-
13 (Vidak).
SUPPORTERS
Transportation California
OPPONENTS
Sierra Club California
DATE: September 3, 2015
TO: Working Council
FROM: Housing and Land Use Committee
SUBJECT: San Jose Rent Control/Stabilization Ordinance Alteration
Action: Support the Land Use and Housing Committee recommendation to advocate for changing the
current San Jose Apartment Rent Ordinance policy from 8% annual rent increases to a percentage that
would be no lower than 4% and no greater than 6% annually. This ordinance would only apply to the
approximately 40,000 apartment homes built before 1979 in the City of San Jose, not impacting new
developments.
Background: Currently, San Jose’s apartment rent ordinance sets rent increases at a ceiling of 8%
annually or 21% every 24 months in triplex (or larger) buildings built prior to 1979. Additionally, there
are standards of reasonableness to be applied to additional rent increases, for which San Jose has a list of
costs that can be passed through, including increases in operations and maintenance, rehabilitation, and
capital improvements. Certain debt service pass-throughs to tenants are also allowed for new owners. If
landlords decide to terminate a tenancy, they cannot raise the rent higher than what the prior tenant paid.
If the tenant leaves voluntarily or is evicted under certain circumstances, then landlords can increase the
rent to market rate. This ordinance covers approximately 40,000 apartment homes in the City of San Jose.
San Jose’s City Council will review the Apartment Rent Ordinance in late August or early September.
This review will give City Council Members the opportunity to alter the current control/stabilization
measures that impact these 40,000 homes.
Analysis: According to the Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project, less than 25% of
individual workers and only 40% of households in San Jose, are able to afford to rent average-priced
homes in the region. In May 2015, average monthly rent in San Jose was $2,917 for a two bedroom
apartment. To rent an average two-bedroom apartment in Silicon Valley, an individual worker would
need to earn more than the 75th income percentile in the region ($105,000).
Recent polling by the Leadership Group in San Jose showed that 71% of likely voters support expanding
the rent ordinance to limit rent increases to 2% annually, while 21% oppose and 8% are uncertain.
The Leadership Group has traditionally focused on the supply side of housing by advocating for
increasing the number of homes as the way to keep homes affordable. However, we have also recognized
that solutions other than increasing supply are needed. For example, we championed inclusionary zoning
ordinances, recently validated by the California Supreme Court, that require market-rate housing
developers to set-aside apartments, land, and/or funding to subsidize homes for lower income people. We
also championed housing impact fees on market-rate apartment developments to fund cities’ affordable
housing trust programs.
The Housing and Land Use Committee recommends that San Jose’s apartment rental ordinance should be
altered to no lower than 4% and no greater than 6% annually and is an important issue because:
Workforce housing at all levels of affordability is increasingly difficult for employees to secure, and
employee retention is a concern in an economy where cost of living expenses can shift suddenly;
Reliable annual increases in rent can help families and children to maintain stable communities,
rather than transitory ones;
We respect landlords' investments and would not want to encourage the excessively prohibitive
restrictions set in some other jurisdictions; and
San Jose’s decision on this issue may influence neighboring cities’ decisions in the next year.
Date: August 17, 2015
TO: Working Council
FROM: Health Committee
SUBJECT: SB 260 (Monning) – County Organized Health System: Consumer Protections
Issue: SB 260 deletes the current licensing exemption and would require a County Organized
Health System (COHS) plan to be licensed by the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC)
under the Knox-Keene Act.
Committee Recommendation: Support
Background: There are two main systems for the delivery of services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries:
fee-for-service (FFS) and Medi-Cal Managed Care (MCMC). MCMC is an organized system for
the delivery of medical services in which Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) contracts
with public and private managed care plans to provide health care coverage for Medi-Cal
beneficiaries.
As of April 2015, out of approximately 12 million total Medi-Cal beneficiaries, MCMC serves
approximately 9.4 million individuals throughout California's 58 counties. There are different
models of Medi-Cal managed care including COHS plans, which are created by the county board
of supervisors and serve all the Medi-Cal managed care consumers in the county. There are
currently six COHS plans operating in 22 counties, serving approximately 2.1 million Medi-Cal
beneficiaries:
CalOptima (Orange County)
CenCal Health (Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties)
Central California Alliance for Health (Santa Cruz, Monterey, Merced Counties)
Gold Coast Health Plan (Ventura County)
Health Plan of San Mateo (San Mateo County) – voluntarily licensed
Partnership Health Plan of California (Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Marin,
Mendocino, Modoc, Napa, Shasta, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Trinity, and Yolo Counties)
While all other Medi-Cal managed care plans must be licensed with DMHC under the
Knox-Keene Act, COHS plans do not have to be licensed and are exempt. The COHS plans
instead enter into contract with the state, which encompasses many, but not all, Knox-Keene
protections.
Knox-Keene licensure provides a number of important consumer protections including:
Independent Medical Review (IMR): Allows a consumer in DMHC plans to appeal
denials of care to an independent panel of medical experts. Consumers in COHS plans
cannot access the IMR process and their only recourse is a state fair hearing before a
nonmedical Administrative Law Judge.
DMHC External Review: For issues outside IMR, such as whether a service is a
covered benefit, consumers in Knox-Keene licensed plans can appeal to DMHC, but
consumers in COHS plans do not have the right to this process.
Continuity of Care: Knox-Keene Act has protections for consumers with particular
health conditions to continue getting care from an out-of-network provider.
Network Adequacy: Knox-Keene licensed plans must publically ensure adequate
provider networks. Existing Medi-Cal contracts for COHS plans do not require this.
Analysis: Supporters of SB 260 argue that the more than two million Californians in COHS
plans deserve the same protections and regulatory oversight as other Medi-Cal beneficiaries.
Supporters of the measure also note that it will ensure greater equity across Medi-Cal managed
care plans by affording all consumer protections for COHS plan enrollees. Given that about 80%
of the more than 12 million Medi-Cal patients are enrolled in a managed care plan, supporters
assert, it is critical that there be sufficient oversight of these plans.
Four of the six COHS oppose SB 260 arguing that it will result in unnecessary, duplicative
regulatory and financial burdens on the COHS, which are already providing high-quality care to,
and maintaining high quality ratings among, Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Opponents also contend
that, by requiring COHS to pay fees for Knox-Keene Act licensure, SB 260 will reduce the
amount of funding they are able to spend on direct services to MCMC beneficiaries, including
transportation, podiatry, vision, and other supplemental non-Medi-Cal benefits currently
provided to Medi-Cal beneficiaries.
Financial Impact: There is currently no official analysis available, but plans licensed under the
Knox-Keene Act are required to pay fees to DMHC to support the costs and expenses associated
with their licensure and regulation, and also to support DMHC's Office of the Patient Advocate
(OPA) which assists and collects data from state health care consumer assistance call centers in
order to enable consumer to access services for which they are eligible. For the 2015-16 fiscal
year, full-service plans are required to pay $1.42 per covered life, plus $0.05 per covered life to
support OPA.
Status: SB 260 passed in the Assembly Health Committee on 7/15/15 and was referred to the
Assembly Appropriations Committee. A hearing is scheduled for 8/19/15.
Support:
Western Center on Law and Poverty (Sponsor)
Autism Deserves Equal Coverage Foundation
Autism Speaks
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
California Medical Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Center for Autism and Related Disorders
Health Access
Justice in Aging
Legal Aid Society of Orange County
Legal Services of Northern California
National Health Law Program
Project Inform
Youth Law Center
Oppose:
CalOptima
CenCal Health
Gold Coast Health Plan
Partnership HealthPlan of California
August 27, 2015
TO: Working Council
FROM: Bena Chang, VP of Transportation
RE: Potential 2016 Transportation Funding Measure
ACTION: Provide feedback and direction on a potential 2016 ballot measure
Background: Since 1984, the Leadership Group has led or co-led regional efforts to
develop funding solutions to our most pressing transportation challenges. These include
measures that built Highway 85; improved Highways 101 and 237; funded key
improvements to Caltrain; improved all 8 county expressways; and started the BART to
Silicon Valley extension.
As the economy rebounds in Silicon Valley, there’s a need to collectively look for new
resources of funding for transportation. Raising local sources is a key part of the
equation.
Process: The Leadership Group and its Board of Directors took the first step towards
evaluating a potential transportation measure by placing it in our rolling 3-year Business
Plan in December 2013. Since that time, we began the conversation by engaging
regional and city transportation professionals, elected officials, employers and
stakeholders.
Stakeholders have been talking about whether or not to include affordable housing
improvements in the potential 2016 transportation measure. The Transportation and
Housing & Land Use Committees will be considering the policy and how to maximize
countywide funding for housing at their September 2nd and September 8th meetings
(respectively).
In the meantime, we are also going out into the field with a public opinion survey to test
whether taxpayers and voters would support a combination of transportation and
affordable housing improvements. We will share the survey findings at the September
3rd Working Council and September 10th Board of Directors meetings.