Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regents hear wide-ranging review of UC student health services and options to sustain care
Summary
University of California leaders told the Health Services Committee that student health centers face mounting financial and operational pressures and outlined systemwide priorities: implement third‑party billing, consider EPIC electronic records on campuses with academic medical centers, and pursue county and Medi‑Cal partnerships to sustain services.
University of California leaders, campus vice chancellors and student health directors told the Board of Regents’ Health Services Committee that student health services are at a “crossroads” and urged coordinated action on billing, electronic records, staffing and sustainable funding.
Dr. David Rubin, Executive Vice President of Health for the University of California, said student health programs vary widely across campuses and face converging pressures: declining student fee support, recruitment and retention difficulties, rising supply and pharmacy costs, and the need to modernize IT systems. “We’re at a crossroads that's being driven by significant challenges now with student health, budgeting, and the ability to attract and retain staff, modernize IT infrastructure,” he said.
Panel and examples
Campus leaders and student health directors from multiple campuses described local arrangements and the tradeoffs each campus faces. Lisa Woods, vice chancellor of health, well‑being and safety at UC Riverside, described a consolidated “umbrella” model on her campus that integrates nine departments (student health, counseling and psychological services, basic needs, disability services, crisis response, health education and others) to provide coordinated care and to share costs.
Pablo (representing the UC vice chancellor student affairs council) said campuses vary widely and cautioned against a “one‑size‑fits‑all” approach, noting differences in geography, local health providers and funding sources. Ed Jenkins, executive director of student health and well‑being at UC San Diego, described how integration with UC San Diego Health and a migration to EPIC several years ago enabled real‑time dashboards, population analytics and better coordination with emergency departments and Express Care clinics. The UC San Diego example was credited with reducing unnecessary ER visits by redirecting students to more appropriate on‑campus or affiliated urgent care resources.
Costs, EPIC and SHIP
Panelists and regents discussed UC SHIP and the student fee model. Presenters said UC SHIP premiums vary by campus: an approximate figure cited for undergraduates was about $2,500 per year with graduate premiums cited in the discussion as higher (figures on transcript ranged up to $6,000–$7,000). Presenters noted that SHIP and student health center revenue interact: reducing premiums or improving SHIP value can unintentionally reduce the funds that student health centers rely on for operations.
Speakers debated the merits and costs of EPIC electronic medical record adoption on campuses with academic medical centers. UC San Diego executives said EPIC enabled population‑level analytics and operational coordination; UCSD reported an EPIC implementation cost of roughly $1.6–$1.8 million and ongoing EPIC operating costs in the range of “$700,000 to $800,000 a year” during early years (figures provided on the record). Panelists said health systems initially underwrote those investments and student health centers later absorbed operating costs as revenue capacity expanded.
Third‑party billing, Medi‑Cal and county partnerships
Regents and campus leaders emphasized third‑party billing as a priority. The chair urged a firm timeline to implement third‑party billing so students covered by parents’ or employer insurance can have services billed to those insurers rather than relying solely on SHIP. Several campuses have limited third‑party billing capacity and some use student fees as a proxy.
Leaders also urged stronger partnerships with county behavioral and public health funds and Medi‑Cal plans. Regent members pointed out that counties hold substantial behavioral health funds and encouraged campuses to pursue those partnerships to expand services.
Access and staffing pressures
Student advisor Jocelyn Contreras told the committee that student health centers are a “lifeline” and that students face growing gaps in access. Contreras said physician staffing across the UC system had increased only modestly systemwide (a figure of 6.2 percent was cited) while UC Berkeley saw a decrease in staffing on the order of 4.7 percent; she also said some campuses report psychiatrist vacancies up to 56 percent. Students reported long waits for mental health care in some places; the panel recommended sustained investment in recruitment and retention.
Operational experiments and next steps
Campuses reported operational experiments aimed at lowering ER usage (after‑hours access, express care referrals, navigation and outreach). UC San Diego reported real‑time dashboards that allow staff to see ER utilization, diagnoses and costs and to intervene. The committee asked campus teams to continue work on third‑party billing, Medi‑Cal alignment, and EPIC migration where appropriate, and requested updates on county partnership efforts.
No formal votes were taken. The committee chair asked UC staff to return with further progress reports and directed central teams to coordinate a system‑wide approach that preserves campus flexibility while pursuing shared standards and financial sustainability.
