‘Reckless' Blue Shield move threatens UC Health access, says S.F. City Attorney
San Francisco officials are urging Blue Shield of California to resolve its contract dispute with UC Health, warning that the breakdown threatens access to critical care for thousands of San Francisco city workers and retirees.
In a letter sent Thursday to Blue Shield's interim CEO Mike Stuart, City Attorney David Chiu and Supervisor Matt Dorsey urged the insurer to finalize an agreement with UC Health, which includes UCSF Medical Center and its affiliates.
Negotiations between the two health care giants have stalled over reimbursement rates, with Blue Shield warning that UC Health plans to terminate the contract on July 10 unless a new deal is reached.
The impasse could affect tens of thousands of Californians insured through employer plans, Covered California, CalPERS and Medicare.
They cited potential disruptions for roughly 5,000 San Francisco Health Service System members — city employees and retirees — who rely on UCSF providers for essential services, including cancer treatments and specialty care.
'Blue Shield's termination of its relationship with UC Health in the middle of a coverage period is unacceptable,' the letter stated. 'Blue Shield's improvident and reckless position upends the expectations of the members who chose Blue Shield coverage and the City agencies that approved the Blue Shield rates last year.'
Dorsey added, 'Here's the bottom line: a large segment of our workforce relied on access to UCSF Health's physicians and services when they chose Blue Shield during open enrollment. For Blue Shield to now materially eliminate these healthcare options — in the middle of a plan year — is, in my view, unfair and potentially a breach of contract.'
'UC Health continues to do our part to negotiate with Blue Shield in hopes of reaching a new, fair agreement to preserve in-network access to UC Health locations without interruptions for Blue Shield of California members,' the UC Office of the President said in a statement this month.
The City Attorney's Office is now evaluating legal avenues, signaling that legal action is possible if Blue Shield fails to preserve in-network access to UC Health.
'There is no more time to waste,' the letter emphasized. 'Blue Shield needs to prioritize patient care.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
6 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Idaho doctor, patients sue over new law halting public benefits to immigrants in US unlawfully
Advertisement Dozens of patients treated by one Boise-area clinic stand to lose access to HIV and AIDS medication under the law, according to the complaint, including several cared for by Davids. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Withdrawing HIV treatment from her patients will not only have devastating consequences on their health, it raises the public health risk of increased HIV transmission,' the ACLU wrote in the lawsuit. 'When her patients are undetectable, they cannot transmit the virus. Without HIV treatment, however, they cannot maintain an undetectable viral level and therefore are able to transmit the virus to others.' The new Idaho law takes effect July 1, and appears to be the first limiting public health benefits since President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to enhance eligibility verification and ensure that public benefits aren't going to ineligible immigrants. Advertisement The law requires people to verify that they are legal U.S. residents to receive public benefits like communicable disease testing, vaccinations, prenatal and postnatal care for women, crisis counseling, some food assistance for children and even access to food banks or soup kitchens that rely on public funding. Federal law generally prohibits immigrants in the U.S. illegally from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security. But there are some exceptions for things like emergency medical care and other emergency or public health services. Idaho's law still allows for emergency medical services. But in a June 18 letter to health care providers, Idaho Division of Public Health administrator Elke Shaw-Tulloch said HIV is a long-term condition and not an emergency — so people must verify their lawful presence in order to get benefits through the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The HIV patients challenging the new law include a married couple from Columbia with pending asylum applications, a man who was brought to the U.S. when he was just 4 years old and has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status until next year, and a man from Mexico who has been living and working in Idaho since 2020. One of the patients said she and her husband were diagnosed with HIV in 2019 and immediately started antiretroviral therapy, receiving the medications at no cost through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The medication has lowered the viral load in her body enough that it is now undetectable, she wrote in a court filing, ensuring that she won't transmit the virus to others. 'My medication protected my daughter while I was pregnant because it prevented me from transmitting HIV to her during pregnancy,' she wrote. Advertisement The treatment allows her to be with her child, watching her grow, she said. Davids has been trying for weeks to get clarity from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about exactly what kind of verification her patients will have to show, and exactly which kinds of immigration status are considered 'lawful.' But the state has yet to provide clear direction, according to the complaint. 'I am really scared about what this means for many of our patients. Their lives will now be in jeopardy,' Davids wrote in a May 30 email to the Department of Health and Welfare.
Hamilton Spectator
6 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Idaho doctor, patients sue over new law halting public benefits to immigrants in US unlawfully
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — An Idaho doctor and four residents are challenging a new state law that halts some of the few public benefits available to people living in the U.S. unlawfully, including a program that provides access to life-saving HIV and AIDS medication for low income patients. The ACLU of Idaho filed the federal lawsuit Thursday night on behalf of Dr. Abby Davids and four people with HIV who are not named because they are immigrants without lawful permanent residency. The complaint says the new law is vague, contradicts federal law and makes it impossible for health care providers to determine exactly what kind of immigration status is excluded and how to verify that status for patients. They want a judge to grant them class-action status, expanding any ruling to other impacted people. Dozens of patients treated by one Boise-area clinic stand to lose access to HIV and AIDS medication under the law, according to the complaint, including several cared for by Davids. 'Withdrawing HIV treatment from her patients will not only have devastating consequences on their health, it raises the public health risk of increased HIV transmission,' the ACLU wrote in the lawsuit. 'When her patients are undetectable, they cannot transmit the virus. Without HIV treatment, however, they cannot maintain an undetectable viral level and therefore are able to transmit the virus to others.' The new Idaho law takes effect July 1, and appears to be the first limiting public health benefits since President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to enhance eligibility verification and ensure that public benefits aren't going to ineligible immigrants. The law requires people to verify that they are legal U.S. residents to receive public benefits like communicable disease testing, vaccinations, prenatal and postnatal care for women, crisis counseling, some food assistance for children and even access to food banks or soup kitchens that rely on public funding. Federal law generally prohibits immigrants in the U.S. illegally from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security. But there are some exceptions for things like emergency medical care and other emergency or public health services. Idaho's law still allows for emergency medical services. But in a June 18 letter to health care providers, Idaho Division of Public Health administrator Elke Shaw-Tulloch said HIV is a long-term condition and not an emergency — so people must verify their lawful presence in order to get benefits through the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program . The HIV patients challenging the new law include a married couple from Columbia with pending asylum applications, a man who was brought to the U.S. when he was just 4 years old and has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status until next year, and a man from Mexico who has been living and working in Idaho since 2020. One of the patients said she and her husband were diagnosed with HIV in 2019 and immediately started antiretroviral therapy, receiving the medications at no cost through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The medication has lowered the viral load in her body enough that it is now undetectable, she wrote in a court filing, ensuring that she won't transmit the virus to others. 'My medication protected my daughter while I was pregnant because it prevented me from transmitting HIV to her during pregnancy,' she wrote. The treatment allows her to be with her child, watching her grow, she said. Davids has been trying for weeks to get clarity from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about exactly what kind of verification her patients will have to show, and exactly which kinds of immigration status are considered 'lawful.' But the state has yet to provide clear direction, according to the complaint. 'I am really scared about what this means for many of our patients. Their lives will now be in jeopardy,' Davids wrote in a May 30 email to the Department of Health and Welfare.
San Francisco Chronicle
9 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Reckless' Blue Shield move threatens UC Health access, says S.F. City Attorney
San Francisco officials are urging Blue Shield of California to resolve its contract dispute with UC Health, warning that the breakdown threatens access to critical care for thousands of San Francisco city workers and retirees. In a letter sent Thursday to Blue Shield's interim CEO Mike Stuart, City Attorney David Chiu and Supervisor Matt Dorsey urged the insurer to finalize an agreement with UC Health, which includes UCSF Medical Center and its affiliates. Negotiations between the two health care giants have stalled over reimbursement rates, with Blue Shield warning that UC Health plans to terminate the contract on July 10 unless a new deal is reached. The impasse could affect tens of thousands of Californians insured through employer plans, Covered California, CalPERS and Medicare. They cited potential disruptions for roughly 5,000 San Francisco Health Service System members — city employees and retirees — who rely on UCSF providers for essential services, including cancer treatments and specialty care. 'Blue Shield's termination of its relationship with UC Health in the middle of a coverage period is unacceptable,' the letter stated. 'Blue Shield's improvident and reckless position upends the expectations of the members who chose Blue Shield coverage and the City agencies that approved the Blue Shield rates last year.' Dorsey added, 'Here's the bottom line: a large segment of our workforce relied on access to UCSF Health's physicians and services when they chose Blue Shield during open enrollment. For Blue Shield to now materially eliminate these healthcare options — in the middle of a plan year — is, in my view, unfair and potentially a breach of contract.' 'UC Health continues to do our part to negotiate with Blue Shield in hopes of reaching a new, fair agreement to preserve in-network access to UC Health locations without interruptions for Blue Shield of California members,' the UC Office of the President said in a statement this month. The City Attorney's Office is now evaluating legal avenues, signaling that legal action is possible if Blue Shield fails to preserve in-network access to UC Health. 'There is no more time to waste,' the letter emphasized. 'Blue Shield needs to prioritize patient care.'
