Mary Zheng/Staff

Amid the increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks faced by universities, UC Berkeley is doubling its efforts and allying with other UC campuses to address security risks.

UC Berkeley was previously underfunded for an institution of its size but will increase investment in its central information security program from $1.5 million to $3 million for the next fiscal year. Universities face the extra challenge of protecting intellectual property and the security data of a heterogeneous population while preserving the openness unique to a research institution.

UC Berkeley faces millions of attempts at breaching vulnerabilities every week, according to Larry Conrad, UC Berkeley’s chief information officer.

“Unfortunately, universities are a worldwide destination for hackers,” Conrad said. “To steal a Social Security number or credit card number, you get some financially stable people (in universities) you can leverage. Research universities also create new knowledge — there’s intellectual property, value on the new market.”

These cyberattacks are also becoming more sophisticated, and phishing attacks — which trick people into revealing accounting credentials by replicating login pages and stealing credentials — have seen an increase. According to Paul Rivers, UC Berkeley’s system and network security manager, hackers monitor UC websites so they can replicate login pages as closely as possible.

The number of cyberattacks campuses face may also depend on the size of the institution and significance of its research. UC Riverside receives thousands of attacks per year — compared to UC Berkeley’s millions — and its budget for next year will be far less than double that of UC Berkeley, said Bob Grant, director of technology at UC Riverside.

While corporations also face cyberattacks, the information exchanges in universities entail a more open but more vulnerable environment. Unlike corporations, campus networks allow virtually anyone to connect to a server and access the Internet from outside.

The research focus of universities also brings unique challenges for researchers and professors who want to protect intellectual property. Hackers may not always have the motivation to steal research to make their own patents — sometimes, they only look to take advantage of the information.

Handling stolen intellectual property is also more difficult because of international hackers and the challenges that come with obtaining cooperation from foreign countries, according to Brian Carver, an assistant professor at the UC Berkeley School of Information. Hackers often launch attacks from multiple locations or change locations, making it complicated to trace the origin of the breach.

Looking ahead: taking steps to ensure improved security

In 2009, hackers broke into University Health Services databases, gaining access to 160,000 people’s personal records for six months. Afterward, the FBI and UCPD combed through records extensively to ensure that all students were aware of the security breach and that firewalls were secure.

Now, the campus’s Information Services and Technology department plans on doubling its funding, an investment that will bring the institution up to par with its peers. Currently, the UC Privacy and Information Security Initiative is also seeking to have an advisory board for both the UC president and for each university by 2014 to guide discussions about issues of privacy and information security.

“It really does take a village to try to respond to this,” Conrad said. “The threat is too pervasive. The (other universities) help identify where the exposures are and do a good job of disseminating the info.”

However, each individual will also have to play an active role, as the most important thing for departments and researchers to do is remain aware of what data they have that could be breached, Rivers said. IST has also emphasized clear data classification standards that inform departments of the level of security their data requires.

Hackers target not only high-security computers but also devices as common as personal laptops. Just having anti-virus software does not suffice these days, Rivers said. IST offers a program called Secunia PSI that individuals on campus can use to see whether they have the necessary updated protection.

“Hackers may look for any kind of data system to get into, whether sensitive or not,” Rivers said. “So they spread out and establish capability on the campus network … That’s the basis by which our security standards require patching your system. People wonder, if it’s just my personal laptop, why does it matter to the university? Well, that’s why.”

In 2010, the university moved to create an overarching security policy. The initiative will establish a systemwide advisory board, train campus privacy leaders and form a consistent balancing analysis — a framework for decision-making when competing privacy interests, university values or obligations exist. The university hopes to fully implement the initiative in the next five years.

Despite these steps, the initiative strives to refrain from turning the university’s security program into that of a corporation. Corporations have more restrictions on accessing web servers and may perform stronger monitoring because they regard the computers as company property. According to Rivers, the university does not want to become a “Big Brother” but aims to maintain strong security alongside uninhibited autonomy.

However, security breaches remain a problem for universities. On July 24, Stanford University experienced its own security breach in its information technology infrastructure. Stanford is still investigating the source and impact of the breach but has urged all students to changed their passwords.

“Due to the emergence of so much new technology and the ever increasing amount of data we store it is of great importance that we make security a priority,” said UC spokesperson Brooke Converse in an email. “It is critical that the University be a good steward of information entrusted to it by students, faculty, staff, and community.”

Contact Mary Zhou at mzhou@dailycal.org

The post UC Berkeley seeks to expand security program to combat cyberattacks appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The University of California filed a lawsuit against Bank of America, Barclays and 20 other global financial institutions on Tuesday, alleging the university suffered financial damages when the banks manipulated an interest rate benchmark, known as the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, that affects trillions of dollars of investments worldwide.

The 236-page lawsuit charges the banks with fraud, deceit and violating antitrust laws, all of which were allegedly part of a conspiracy to lower the Libor. Although the scale and scope of the damages to the university’s $80 billion portfolio of investments have yet to be determined, UC spokesperson Brooke Converse said the university’s retirement pool was negatively affected by the manipulation of rates.

“We have a pretty strong case in terms of the evidence that’s out there, and we have a responsibility given that we incurred losses to our investment pool,” Converse said. “We have a duty to recover those losses.”

Libor determines the benchmark rate at which many of the world’s largest banks are able to borrow money by surveying representatives from 18 major global banks. The rate impacts short-term interest rates for a wide variety of financial instruments and investments, some of which the UC system invests in. The lawsuit claims the defendants colluded to artificially suppress Libor for the benefit of individual traders.

Bank of America, listed first in the university’s lawsuit, declined to comment on the case. UBS, Barclays and The Royal Bank of Scotland, each indicted in the suit, were fined a total of about $2.5 billion in the past year for manipulating Libor and similar benchmarks.

The law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy is representing the university and several other California civic bodies, including San Diego County, the city of Richmond and the East Bay Municipal Utility District, in similar lawsuits against the banks. Some banks are also facing an array of class action lawsuits from groups around the country.

Nanci Nishimura, an attorney with the firm, said although the wide scope of the Libor scandal is difficult to understand, everyone, from homeowners to students, is affected through the interest rates on student loans, mortgages and credit card payments.

“People need to know they’re being taken advantage of,” Nishimura said. “This is in the paper almost every day, and people think it isn’t sexy — but it’s affecting us every single day.”

But the university’s suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, may not even be heard. In March, most of the claims in a similar suit filed in the Manhattan District Court were dismissed.

Even if the complaint is thrown out, however, Nishimura says filing the university’s case has the potential to shed light on abuses in the financial sector.

“Even if this complaint were thrown out on a technicality, even if not all the claims survive,” Nishimura said, “there have been wrongs, and we’ve got to get justice.”

Contact Chris Yoder at cyoder@dailycal.org and follow him on Twitter @christiancyoder.

The post UC files lawsuit against banks alleging manipulation of Libor interest rate benchmark appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Brown proposed about $250 million in funding increases for both the UC and CSU systems in his January and May budget proposals. Until this week, however, the funds were contingent upon reaching certain performance requirements, such as making education more affordable, decreasing the time to earn a degree, improving completion rates and increasing transfer rates, among others.

Legislators say they rejected funding conditions in the original budget proposal because the financial cuts to the UC and CSU systems would be too high if they failed to achieve their targets. Lower funding would penalize students rather than hold institutions responsible for poor outcomes.

“We, in effect, agreed it’s OK to have some accountability,” said Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley. “But we lessened the accountability that was more harmful for students and directed that accountability more towards the institutions.”

This year’s budget still requires the UC and CSU systems to track and report the performance measurements to Sacramento as outlined in the original budget proposed by Brown. However, funding will not depend on meeting any specific goal.

But some of the performance measures were changed to reflect a more realistic target that better measures academic success.

“The governor had issues around the number of years people were in school,” Skinner said. “We modified that to be more focused around graduation rate versus trying to restrict the number of years people are pursuing their education, because there are so many factors that can affect that.”

It is also likely that Brown’s performance requirements will be included in future budgets, according to H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs for the California Department of Finance.

“It is going to take time to develop the metrics,” Palmer said. “In the first year, we will begin work with legislators and the UC and CSU systems to develop how we’ll measure and gather data going forward.”

Nevertheless, according to UC spokesperson Brooke Converse, the tie between funding and performance requirements as designed in Brown’s proposed budget was not feasible for the UC system.

“It would have been difficult to reach some of the numbers in the proposed requirements,” Converse said. “We are not against performance outcome requirements, but we need to work with the governor to find numbers that are more doable.”

The 2013-14 budget, though approved by the state Assembly and Senate, will need to be signed by Brown before the end of the month for it to become law.

“We are very hopeful that the budget will go through, but the governor has the right to use his blue pen,” Skinner said.

Contact Stephanie Petrillo at spetrillo@dailycal.org

The post California legislature eliminates conditions for UC funding appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The increase will affect nonrepresented staff members at the university — staff unaffiliated with unions — which include librarians, human resources and public affairs staff, among others. Despite the planned increase, staff  members at UC Berkeley have only been authorized a 1 percent increase in salary to account for a 2 percent increase authorized in March as a market adjustment. The universitywide increase will also exempt senior UC management.

A similar universitywide salary increase of 3 percent was authorized in October 2011, but it was merit-based and given only to staff who received satisfactory performance reviews and had salaries of less than $200,000. According to UC spokesperson Brooke Converse, there has not been an unconditional universitywide salary increase in five years.

“We want to make sure that all our faculty and staff is valued,” Converse said. “The president (Mark Yudof) believes the staff deserves it.”

Converse said UC President Mark Yudof wanted to implement the increase now because staff pension contributions will go up from 5 percent to 6.5 percent on July 1. Providing the salary increase could offset some of the costs.

Robert Powell, chair of the UC Academic Senate, said that many of the faculty members he has spoken to about this salary increase are in favor of it.

However, unlike the other UC schools, UC Berkeley will not receive the full 3 percent increase due to a 2 percent salary increase for nonrepresented staff in March.

In an email in March, then-UC Berkeley chancellor Robert Birgeneau said the 2 percent increase at UC Berkeley was an effort to align the compensation of the school’s nonrepresented staff with the marketplace and retain quality personnel.

“In fact, at present our non-represented staff is, on average, 11 percent behind the market as of 2012, and we are experiencing challenges in recruiting Bay Area talent to important positions here on our campus,” Birgeneau said in the email. “My primary goals in this effort are to recognize our staff, strengthen our workforce, and ensure the future of UC Berkeley.”

The funds for the universitywide salary increase will come from each campus’s 2013-14 budget.

The estimated cost of the systemwide program for core funded programs is approximately $54 million, according to Converse.

Contact Jane Nho at jnho@dailycal.org.

Clarification(s):
A previous version of this article may have implied that the UC would be receiving additional funds for the salary increases. In fact, no additional allocations will be made to fund these increases. The funds will come from each campus’s 2013-14 budget.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that a 3 percent increase in salary was approved for faculty and nonrepresented academic personnel. In fact, the salary increase is 3 percent for nonrepresented staff and 2 percent for faculty and nonrepresented academic personnel.

A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that staff pension contributions will go up 6.5 percent on July 1. In fact, they will go up from 5 percent to 6.5 percent.

The post UC implements unconditional salary increase for faculty and nonrepresented staff appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The UC Board of Regents met on Wednesday in Sacramento to discuss the governor’s May budget revision and capital projects at UC Merced and UC Berkeley, among other issues.

The governor’s May budget revision, released Tuesday, remains largely unchanged from the January proposal. Patrick Lenz, the university’s vice president for budget and capital resources, said the university did not receive any additional increases in funding in the May revision.

The budget also calls for a four-year tuition freeze for all students except those in professional schools, a restructuring of debt and discontinuation of a proposed unit cap on state-subsidized courses, which could have affected 2,200 UC students in the next school year.

Student Regent Jonathan Stein and Regent Bonnie Reiss raised concerns about rising costs of professional student fees while undergraduate and other program costs have been held constant.

“Because Prop. 30 passed and because of new state revenues, we’ve been able to hold tuition constant,” Stein said. “In reality, we’ve been able to hold undergraduate and Ph.D tuition constant while professional schools continue to rise.”

The regents also discussed restructuring the university’s debt. The state of California currently takes out bonds on behalf of the university, but UC officials say shifting the responsibility of the debt to the UC system would help lower the debt.

“That debt is greater because the state of California’s credit rating is not as good as ours,” said Brooke Converse, spokesperson for the UC Office of the President. “What we’re asking is that the state of California let us take over and restructure that debt, because if we restructure it, we’ll be able to save $80 million a year.”

The university is also working with the governor to expand facilities at UC Merced, said Nathan Brostrom, the university’s executive vice president for business operations.

“The highest priority is a classroom and academic building at UC Merced,” Brostrom said. “They are now close to 6,000 students, and they do not have space for continued growth unless they get more classroom buildings.”

The regents also approved a plan to build a new aquatics center at UC Berkeley on the current site of the Tang Center parking lot.

Protesters from American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 3299, a union representing patient-care workers at UC medical centers, also interrupted early in the meeting for about 45 minutes to protest in favor of higher pay and increased staffing.

On Thursday, the regents will meet in closed sessions to discuss collective bargaining matters and lawsuits related to the UC system.

Staff writer Virgie Hoban contributed to this report. 

Mitchell Handler covers academics and administration. Contact him at mhandler@dailycal.org and follow him on Twitter @mitchellhandler.

The post UC Regents meet in Sacramento to discuss budget, projects at UC Berkeley and Merced appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Andrew Kuo/Senior Staff

Following months of controversy, UC Berkeley announced that it will withdraw from the systemwide UC Student Health Insurance Plan in the fall.

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau announced the decision to withdraw Thursday, joining four other UC campuses that are abandoning at least some parts of UC SHIP. The announcement comes after the systemwide Council of Chancellors approved various changes to UC SHIP, including campus withdrawal, in a meeting Wednesday.

“Today I am stating my support for the students’ position and, following their urging, announcing that UC Berkeley will be withdrawing from UC SHIP and returning to a UC Berkeley-operated student health insurance plan,” Birgeneau said in a statement.

Beginning Aug. 15, UC Berkeley will transition back into a campus-managed, fully funded insurance plan similar to what the campus had in place for decades before joining UC SHIP in 2011.

UC SHIP follows a self-funded model in which those paying the costs, in this case the UC system, are responsible for absorbing the plan’s risks, according to Bahar Navab, UC Berkeley’s student representative to the UC SHIP Advisory Board. Fully funded plans place risk on a separate insurance provider but generally have higher premiums.

UC SHIP currently has a $400,000 lifetime cap and a $10,000 prescription drug coverage cap. As a fully funded plan, UC Berkeley-provided insurance would also have to comply with the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits these coverage caps.

In a letter sent to Birgeneau last month by UC Berkeley student representatives, Navab and ASUC President Connor Landgraf wrote that poor management from the UC Office of the President and a desire for more local control were some of the reasons students favored withdrawing from UC SHIP.

“I think that localized control and more decentralized governance is what’s best for our campus right now,” Navab said. “It’s a two-year plan, and we can always re-evaluate after two years. If UC SHIP has changed enough that we want to go back to it, we always have that option.”

UC Berkeley’s decision to withdraw comes in light of UC SHIP’s projected $46.5 million net deficit, which earlier prompted the possibility of premium increases across the board.

According to Kim LaPean, communications manager at the Tang Center, the new plan is expected to include a 13 percent premium increase for undergraduates and a 20 percent increase for graduate students, though the campus has yet to finalize rates. LaPean said benefits will not decrease under the campus plan and that officials are working to ensure that students will be able to see the same outside carriers.

“Berkeley students were really clear that they did not want to lose benefits,” LaPean said. “The changes that they’re going to see are all going to be in the favor of the student.”

Other campuses that decided to partially withdraw from UC SHIP include UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Riverside and UC Santa Barbara. Some campuses, like UCLA, have opted to stick with UC SHIP.

Students with coverage through UC SHIP next year will also see changes, including lifting the lifetime maximum, annual pharmacy cap and other caps on essential care. The UC Office of the President is currently reviewing options to close the deficit, but UC spokesperson Brooke Converse said students will not have to pay for the deficit through premium increases.

“Our job right now is to respect the campuses that want to leave,” said Scott Arno, the UCLA student representative to UC SHIP Advisory Board. “No campus should be forced into this plan. We need to make it run better so that they’ll want to come back.”

Mitchell Handler covers academics and administration. Contact him at mhandler@dailycal.org and follow him on Twitter @mitchellhandler.

The post UC Berkeley to abandon SHIP appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Randy Adam Romero/File

Officials in charge of the UC Student Health Insurance Plan voted on March 22 to lift the plan’s coverage caps, one move in a series of steps before the final decision regarding the caps is made.

The UC SHIP Advisory Board, which consists of student and health care representatives from each UC campus and from the UC Office of the President, voted unanimously in favor of eliminating the $10,000 annual prescription drug coverage cap. All but one campus voted in favor of eliminating the $400,000 lifetime coverage cap and instead voted in favor of raising the lifetime limit to $500,000, according to UC spokesperson Brooke Converse.

For months, students have been urging UC SHIP officials to have the plan voluntarily comply with the Affordable Care Act’s ban on lifetime and annual prescription drug limits on essential care. As a self-funded insurance plan, UC SHIP is exempt from the health care reform law.

Few students actually surpass the coverage caps, but for those who do, like Kenya Wheeler, a former graduate student in city planning at UC Berkeley, the effects can be devastating. Wheeler began treatment for primary central nervous system T-cell lymphoma in November 2011. Since then, he has met the lifetime coverage cap and has had to pay at least $10,000 in out-of-pocket expenses for his treatment.

“The advisory board that oversees UC SHIP considered removing the caps last year, too, but didn’t recommend making that change for the 2012-13 academic year because of the increases to student premiums that would have resulted,” said UCOP spokesperson Shelly Meron in an email. “It was the intent of the advisory board to reconsider the removal of the plan benefit limits and to time that with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in 2014.”

The movement to lift the caps comes as UC SHIP is facing a projected $57 million deficit by the end of the current plan year. The UC Office of the President has considered raising premiums by an average of 25 percent systemwide as a way to close the deficit.

Lifting the coverage caps would not affect the deficit, Converse said, although it would require another premium increase that is expected to be significantly smaller than the proposed 25 percent.

The advisory board’s recommendation will now be considered by the UC SHIP Executive Committee, a group of top UCOP and campus health officials, at its April 24 meeting. Following its recommendation, the Council of Chancellors will make the final decision on lifting the caps. The council is scheduled to meet May 1.

Several lawmakers have expressed support for eliminating the caps. Reps. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, urged in a letter in February to align UC SHIP with the national standards set in place by the Affordable Care Act. State Assemblymember Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, introduced a bill in February that would force health insurance plans run by a university or college to comply with the section of the Affordable Care Act that lifts limits on lifetime and annual coverage of essential health benefits.

Mitchell Handler covers academic and administration. Contact him at mhandler@dailycal.org

The post UC SHIP Advisory Board votes to eliminate coverage cap appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Karen Ling/File

UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau joined a growing group including student leaders and politicians when he urged lifting coverage caps from the UC Student Health Insurance Plan in a letter signed Wednesday.

In a letter addressed to UC SHIP officials, Birgeneau cited a survey of more than 450 UC Berkeley students showing 67 percent in favor of lifting the $400,000 lifetime coverage cap and 63 percent in favor of lifting the $10,000 annual prescription drug coverage cap in exchange for slight premium increases.

“From the survey, we frequently heard from Berkeley students that they felt a moral need to lift the caps,” Birgeneau said in the letter.

For months, students have been urging UC SHIP officials to have the plan voluntarily comply with the Affordable Care Act’s ban on lifetime and annual dollar limits on essential care. As a self-funded insurance plan, UC SHIP is exempt from the health care reform law.

UC Office of the President spokesperson Brooke Converse said UC officials are in support of ridding the plan of the caps but are still examining the financial implications of the proposal.

“In general, we’re in the support of lifting the caps,” Converse said. “We’re working to see how we can do that, but it is going to take a raise in premiums in order to do so.”

Although few students actually reach the coverage limits, the effects on those who do can be devastating.

In his letter, Birgeneau acknowledged Kenya Wheeler, a former graduate student in city planning at UC Berkeley who began treatment for primary central nervous system T-cell lymphoma in November 2011. Since then, he has met the lifetime coverage cap and has had to pay at least $10,000 in out-of-pocket expenses for his treatment.

“I was really excited and pleased that the chancellor has taken a public stance in support of better health care for all students,” Wheeler said. “For me, it adds a sense of there being a meaning from all the challenges and hard times that I went through in fighting cancer.”

Other local and national leaders, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, urged in a letter last month to align UC SHIP with the national standards set in place by the Affordable Care Act.

Last month, California State Assemblymember Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, introduced AB 314 to require plans like the UC SHIP to comply with the federal requirement and end lifetime and annual coverage caps. The Committee on Health is scheduled to hear the bill on Tuesday.

The systemwide Council of Chancellors will accept recommendations regarding the coverage caps from the UC SHIP Executive Committee, a group consisting of campus and UCOP officials, before making the final decision on the coverage caps. The council’s next meeting is scheduled for May 1.

Mitchell Handler covers academics and administration. Contact him at mhandler@dailycal.org and follow him on Twitter @mitchellhandler.

The post Chancellor Birgeneau urges lifting of coverage caps on UC SHIP appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Michael Drummond/Staff

The California State Legislature is currently considering the passage of legislation that would require state institutions to purchase food grown or produced in the state before buying products from out-of-state or other countries.

If passed, Assembly Bill 199, the “Choose California” bill, would mandate that state institutions purchase foods from California farms so long as their prices are not more than 5 percent more expensive than identical items from outside the state.

Public schools would be exempt from this 5 percent threshold and would only be required to purchase from in-state producers if competing out-of-state products cost the same amount or were less expensive, according to Noelle Cremers, director of natural resources and commodities at the California Farm Bureau Federation.

The bureau, a nonprofit nongovernmental organization made up of 53 county farm bureaus whose stated purpose is to protect and promote the state’s agricultural interests, supports the legislation.

“(The bill) would help promote California-grown agricultural products,” Cremers said. “The state should play a leadership role in supporting our farmers and showing the importance of purchasing homegrown products to its citizens.”

AB 199 was introduced in late January by Assemblymember Chris Holden, D-Pasadena. The bill will soon be heard in the state Assembly’s Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review as well as the Committee on Agriculture, said Wendy Gordon, Holden’s press secretary, in an email.

“Fresh, locally-sourced produce and products are always a plus for public institutions such as state hospitals, prisons, and other state-run organizations,” Gordon said in the email. “We are optimistic the lawmakers and governor will see the value in this bill — not only to farmers but also those who will be eating fresher, locally sourced foods.”

The bill’s potential impact on the state budget is still unknown, as is whether it will benefit large farms or smaller ones and whether it will affect the amount of conventional produce grown in the state in comparison to organic crops. Cremers said she does not think the bill would change the current balance between organic and conventional products.

The UC Office of the President has yet to review the bill to take a position on it, according to spokesperson Brooke Converse. In 2008, Cal Dining worked with Buy Fresh, Buy Local, an initiative of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, to pledge that the campus food service will purchase a minimum of 10 percent of its food products from local sources. Cal Dining is currently purchasing 60 percent of its produce from within a 16-county radius of campus, according to its website.

Schools in the Berkeley Unified School District would not be affected by the bill’s passage because the district does not purchase from out-of-state, according to district spokesperson Mark Coplan. Berkeley’s geographic location allowed it to more easily adopt a local foods model compared to other districts throughout the state, he said.

Coplan noted that 30 percent of the food in the schools is organic and comes from within 50 miles.

“It’s something that the Legislature needs to help school districts achieve,” Coplan said. “It’s something everyone needs to do, and it’s something that schools need help funding.”

A similar bill was passed by the state Legislature 2001 but was vetoed by governor Gray Davis, and a 2010 effort ended shortly after the bill was introduced in the state Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Levon Minassian covers food news. Contact him at lminassian@dailycal.org.

The post Bill could mandate that state institutions purchase food locally appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Pelosi, along with Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, were among 10 members of Congress who signed a letter to Yudof in an effort to better align the plan with the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The letter follows yesterday’s protest against the UC SHIP premium increases, coverage caps and other restrictions.

“While we understand that UC SHIP is not legally required to adopt these protections as a self-insured student health plan,” the letter said. “It is troubling that the health plan of one of the world’s most prestigious university systems would not adopt this industry standard.”

The UC SHIP is projected to have a cumulative $57 million deficit by the end of the 2012 to 2013 plan year, prompting the possibility of student premium increases by an average of 25 percent systemwide, including a 19.8 percent increase for UC Berkeley students.

“We understand what Nancy Pelosi is asking for in the letter and a good deal of what she is referring to in the letter we are already looking into and we are already in the process of working toward the same goals she mentions in the letter,” said UCOP spokesperson Brooke Converse.

The UC SHIP has been scrutinized by student groups and unions, including UAW Local 2865 which represents UC Student Workers, for its $400,000 lifetime coverage cap and $10,000 annual prescription drug cap. A group of about 50 students and workers protested outside the Tang Center on Wednesday against the proposed increase and coverage caps.

“The letter shows that UCOP is way outside the mainstream in it’s denial of coverage of life saving care to students,” said Charlie Eaton, a doctoral student in sociology at UC Berkeley and financial secretary of the union. “It’s time for UCOP to commit that they will eliminate lifetime and annual caps on coverage in 2013.”

The letter added that making these plan changes is especially important for the upcoming 2013 – 2014 school year.

“We believe this is especially critical in the coming 2013-2014 school year, as the market changes and grows more competitive with full implementation of the Affordable Care Act,” the letter said. “UC students and student workers should have the access to the same health care protections that millions of other students, student workers and Americans already enjoy.”

Mitchell Handler covers academics and administration. Contact him at mhandler@dailycal.org and follow him on Twitter @mitchellhandler.

The post Congress members urge changes to UC SHIP appeared first on The Daily Californian.