In a controversial and widely criticized move, Mayor London Breed has been accused of betraying San Francisco’s city employees and retirees by manipulating the Health Service Board (HSB) to switch from United Healthcare (UHC) to Blue Shield of California (BSC). This decision, allegedly driven by budget concerns, has sparked outrage among employees, retirees, and advocacy groups.
The Initial Decision and Controversy
On June 7, 2024, the HSB voted 4-3 against replacing the UHC plan with BSC, a decision influenced by significant concerns about the potential negative impact on retirees. Dr. Stephen Follansbee, a long-serving board member, highlighted the potential disruption to physician-patient relationships and the inferior quality of care under BSC compared to UHC. This vote was seen as a victory for the thousands of retirees and their families who rely on UHC for their healthcare needs.
Mayor Breed’s Intervention
Despite the HSB’s initial decision, Mayor Breed took immediate action to reverse the outcome. She removed Dr. Follansbee from the board and appointed Dr. Fiona Wilson in his place. This strategic move ensured that the vote would be reconsidered. Conveniently, another board member who voted against the switch, Jack Cremen, was on a planned holiday, further tipping the scales in favor of the mayor’s agenda.
On June 18, 2024, with the newly constituted board, a re-vote was conducted, resulting in the adoption of the BSC plan. This reversal has been criticized as a manipulation of the board to serve budgetary goals rather than the best interests of the retirees.
Impact on Retirees
The decision to switch to BSC is expected to save the city approximately $20 million annually but at a significant cost to the retirees. Many retirees will be forced to change doctors, and those living out of state may not have adequate coverage, leading to fear and confusion about their healthcare benefits. The move has been described as balancing the budget on the backs of the city’s most vulnerable residents.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
The actions taken to achieve this switch have raised legal and ethical concerns. The law firm representing Protect Our Benefits, Inc. (POB), has argued that the re-vote on June 18 was procedurally incorrect and illegal. The firm has threatened litigation to protect the rights of the retirees affected by this decision, emphasizing the mayor’s lack of adherence to proper procedures and the board’s own rules.
Public Outcry and Opposition
Numerous unions and advocacy groups, including the Police Officers Association, Firefighters Local 798, and the Retired Employees of the City and County of San Francisco, have voiced their opposition to the switch. The decision has not only sparked public outrage but also risks further damaging the city’s ability to attract and retain employees, especially in critical areas such as law enforcement.
Mayor London Breed’s intervention to manipulate the Health Service Board’s decision in favor of Blue Shield of California has been widely condemned as a betrayal of San Francisco’s employees and retirees. The move, seen as a bid to address budget deficits at the expense of the city’s most vulnerable, raises serious legal, ethical, and practical concerns. As the debate continues, the affected retirees and their advocates are preparing for a potential legal battle to overturn this controversial decision.