Public Affairs Reporting

Journalism 135

Course Description | Grading | Texts & Reading | Course Requirements | Links | Weekly Assignments

Sample Stories

Bill Story #1
Bill Story #2
Bill Story #3

Public meeting story #1
Public meeting story #2

Sample Bill brief #1

A bill approved by the California Senate Tuesday would require hospitals to report their charity care policies to the state and empower state regulators to set rules for hospitals to use when billing the uninsured.

Consumer groups have advocated for charity care regulation because they say many uninsured patients are not told how to apply for assistance paying bills when they are hospitalized. Hospitals have been arbitrary and inconsistent in telling patients about charity care programs, consumer groups say.

Hospital groups have objected to state regulation of charity care because they say they already have clear internal guidelines for assisting poor patients with bills. For the uninsured, hospitals often waive all fees, provide discounted care, or bill on installment plans. State regulation of charity care would create unnecessary paperwork and drive up the cost of treating the poor, hospitals say.

To reach the governor's desk,the measure, SB 379 by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, still must pass in the Assembly.

Sample Bill brief #2

The state Senate unanimously passed a bill last week requiring that cities be notified before a group home moves inside its boundaries. SB 382 now goes to the Assembly.

Elk Grove residents launched the issue in 2002 by complaining to City Hall, then to state Sen. Rico Oller, R-San Andreas, that Mathiot Group of Carmichael had opened a group home for sex offenders on Serafino Court.

When Oller introduced the bill last year, he also put forth a bill prohibiting housing rapists, murderers and violent sex offenders in neighborhoods. The bill failed to make it out of a subcommittee.

Sample Bill story #3

California lawmakers on Thursday introduced a package of bills designed to curb prescription costs, in part by leveraging bulk government purchases and in part by helping patients and state agencies buy medicine from Canada.

Dubbed the Affordable Prescription Drug Act of 2004, the proposals also give state lawmakers more oversight of drug spending in government health programs.

"This bill package is a prescription for relief from the high costs consumers and taxpayers are paying for prescription drugs," said Assemblyman Dario Frommer, D-Los Angeles, author of several of the bills. "It empowers patients and taxpayers to safely find the lowest prices possible for the medications they need."

The proposals come at a time when drug costs are taking a big bite out of government and household budgets.

California spent $2.9 billion for prescription drugs in the Medi-Cal program in the last fiscal year, a figure expected to reach $3.8 billion this year. The state's prison system spends more than $125 million each year on drugs.

The California Public Employees' Retirement System, the third largest purchaser of health care in the country, spends $700 million a year on prescriptions.

At the same time, consumers spend an average of $654 out of pocket on drugs every year.

"Prescription costs are an election year issue, and this package is clearly timed to help Democrats hold on to seats," said Jerry Flannagan, with the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer Rights. "That said, these are proposals that do have some potential to save money for the state and for patients."

All told, state agencies, private employers buying insurance and individuals in California spend $25 billion each year on prescriptions, Frommer said.

One bill he proposed, AB 1958, might take advantage of the bulk drug rates negotiated by CalPERS by allowing more state agencies to join that pool. Because bulk drug discounts are based on the volume of prescriptions filled, pooling several state health programs into a single bulk purchasing pool might lower the cost of drugs.

Another bill, AB 1959, by Assemblywoman Judy Chu, D- Monterey Park, would require CalPERS and other state health programs to share currently confidential drug contracts with the chairs of the Assembly and Senate budget committees. The bill is intended to help lawmakers guard against overspending.

In addition, AB 1960, by Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, would require prescription benefits companies that manage drug coverage for state programs to disclose to lawmakers the discounts and rebates they receive from drug companies for bulk purchases. That information, too, is currently confidential.

To prevent third-party vendors from buying lists of physicians' prescribing habits to use for drug marketing, another bill, AB 262, by Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, D-Alameda, would set up a "do not sell" list barring pharmacies from giving out information about doctors who have asked that their prescribing information be kept private.

As part of the package, lawmakers also expanded on proposals to buy Canadian drugs that were unveiled earlier this year. AB 1957, by Frommer, would have the state Board of Pharmacy set up a consumer Web site to help patients buy drugs from certified Canadian drugstores and could also have the state buy Canadian drugs.

Lawmakers also suggested two resolutions to Congress. They would ask the U.S. secretary of health and human services to certify that Canadian imports are safe, which could allow pharmacists in California to buy drugs from Canadian wholesalers.

Currently, federal regulators are discouraging California and several other states from purchasing drugs in Canada because they say the practice is unsafe and it violates federal law.

In addition, the lawmakers would ask Congress to repeal a provision in the Medicare reform bill passed last year that bars the federal government from negotiating prices for the new Medicare drug benefit.

Sample Meeting Story #1

One neighbor called it a moral dilemma.

Members of the county Project Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, said the decision is difficult.

At issue is whether to approve a 20-year-old accessory dwelling, or "granny flat," at a Merrywood Drive home in the Country Club area.

While board members weighed possible outcomes for the guest home, which was built piecemeal over 20 years, they ultimately decided at the Jan. 26 meeting to postpone their decision until Feb. 23.

About a dozen neighbors spoke against the accessory dwelling, which Dorman and Dortha Pitts, who purchased the home in 2002, said they would use to house their daughter, who has diabetes.

The couple did not attend the meeting but were represented by their attorney, Brian Holloway.

The couple seek a use permit and variance because their home, at 10,320 square feet, is a bit shy of the necessary 10,400 square feet for an accessory dwelling.

The second house also is too close to the rear yard and to the main home. The house needs to be 10 feet from each area but is only 4 1/2 feet from the rear yard and 6 1/2 feet from the main home.

The granny flat was rejected by a zoning administrator and the Arden-Arcade Community Planning Advisory Council, which told the couple to tear it down or use it for storage.

Krista C. Whitman, a county attorney, told the Board of Zoning Appeals that its decision would be final.

The controversy is heightened by recent changes to the state law, which make it easier for homeowners to build second dwellings, and which neighbors said would change the character of their neighborhood. Assembly Bill 1866, which took effect July 1, 2003, eases restrictions on the permit process for building second units.

Zoning changes allow home builders to add a 400-square-foot unit without a public hearing as long as the structure meets other requirements for setbacks and parking.

At the Jan. 26 meeting, county planner Charlie Dyer told the commission that the homes on Merrywood Drive have no garages, so the occupants of an accessory dwelling would add to the street parking. He also said that no taxes have been paid on the accessory property.

Dyer said the accessory dwelling, construction of which began in the late 1970s, was built incrementally. It began as an office, and later a kitchen and bedrooms were added. He said there are no building permits for the property.

The house's ownership changed in 2002 and a "for rent" sign went up, which prompted neighbors to question the validity and safety of the accessory dwelling.

Dyer said that without a building inspection and permits, there was no way for the county to verify if the home is up to code.

Holloway, who apologized for the Pittses' absence because of a death in the family, said they purchased the home so their daughter, who is losing her eyesight, would be able to live with them. He said the previous owners had used the second home in the same fashion.

Although the Pittses plan to move into the neighborhood, they are currently renting the property to a young couple with children and a father who lives in the smaller unit.

He said the Pittses, who are retired, do not want to sell the house, and they have paid for formal mediation between the neighbors without success.

At the meeting, Holloway suggested that the board attach some conditions if they decide to approve the appeal, one of which is that the property owners must occupy either the front or rear house for the permit to be valid.

He said the second dwelling fits with the neighborhood's character.

Robert Yoha, president of the Cottage Creek Neighborhood Association, said the issue is a moral dilemma and is the "sum of all (neighbors') fears."

He said about 80 percent, or 600 homes, in the area are single-family homes with about 32 duplexes that have been "grandfathered" in. But the duplexes are stand-alone buildings built on deep lots with sufficient parking, unlike the property on Merrywood Drive.

Neighbor Erik Olson, who lives north of the property, said he is opposed to turning the home into a permanent duplex.

Michael Seaman, who lives to the west of the property, said if the board grants the Pittses a permit and a variance, it would violate state law because there is nothing unusual about the property, and the board would be granting special privileges.

Seaman said his home is being renovated, but he is "spending a lot of money to meet every county code" and to comply with all the standards.

Seaman said this is an active code enforcement case, and there are different ways to resolve it.

"I want to see the code enforced," he said.

Holloway said there are two-family homes everywhere, and the accessory dwelling has existed for 20 years, so it would not be a precedent.

He said the county should not retroactively enforce the codes against the Pittses. He said the property is unique because it's a corner lot that is a little smaller than other lots.

Board Chairman Timothy Nunnemaker called the issue "very, very controversial" because the accessory dwelling has existed in various forms for 20 years, and now neighbors are protesting. On the other hand, he said, the home was built without permits.

Richard Fowler, a board member, said the illegal structure was built by previous owners. He said he would consider allowing the use of the guest home with owner occupation.

Board member Carrie Cornwell said there does not seem to be a middle ground for the issue. She said the Pittses' granny flat morphed slowly, and neighbors had a problem with the renters. She said she may favor granting an appeal with conditions.

Meeting story sample #2

Two colleges get Placer backing

Supervisor sees a 'really remarkable' opportunity

By Art Campos -- Bee Staff Writer - (Published October 21, 2003)

Placer County supervisors threw their support behind two four-year universities in the western part of the county, despite the fact that neither is included in the general plan.

The endorsement was given at the end of an all-day workshop in Auburn on Monday designed to examine the impact of the two universities and other pending development projects in western Placer County.

Although no one from the public was opposed to the proposed De La Salle University or to a branch campus of California State University, Sacramento, some of the 27 speakers were concerned that their construction and accompanying housing projects would cause significant losses of agricultural land, natural habitat and open space -- elements the county wants to retain in west Placer.

But supervisors felt that they couldn't pass up a chance to bring two universities to their fast-growing county when more students throughout California want to go to college.

"Occasionally in a person's lifetime, if we are lucky, we might get the opportunity to do something really remarkable," Supervisor Bill Santucci said. "I believe that time is right here, staring us in the face."

"It's visionary," Supervisor Ted Gaines said. "I think it is our civic duty to help provide higher education. (The universities) are a missing piece of the puzzle to make Placer County a better place to live."

Supervisors Robert Weygandt, Harriet White and Board Chairman Rex Bloomfield also supported the universities, but each said that the county's plans to conserve agricultural land and natural habitat must be protected.

The supervisors' endorsement was made as they approved seven recommendations on how the administrative staff is to proceed with the inclusion of the universities in relationship to other projects in west Placer.

The recommendations include amending the general plan to accommodate the universities; considering adjacent development areas for college student and staff housing; making sure roads, water and sewer needs are met; and protecting the county landfill from encroachment of incompatible uses by trying to retain a one-mile buffer around it.

Developers also must create or finance other areas for agricultural or wildlife if such lands are removed during construction, the recommendations said.

Lastly, Placer Parkway, a proposed route linking Highway 65 to Highway 99-70 in Sutter County, must be studied concurrently with the planning for new development in west Placer.

The route for Placer Parkway is still about three years away from being chosen, which makes it difficult for the universities and developers of proposed subdivisions in west Placer to know whether an expressway will cut through their projects.

The supervisors' support for the universities pleased Kyriakos Tsakopoulos, president of KT Development, which is representing the Christian Brothers order, developer of the private De La Salle University.

Tsakopoulos' father, Angelo, is donating 1,100 acres west of Roseville for the university and for a college town. He also plans to establish an endowment of $100 million so that the university can open.

"I'm thrilled that the board sees an extraordinary opportunity to have the Christian Brothers develop and operate a private four-year liberal arts college in Placer County," Kyriakos Tsakopoulos said."But the supervisors also sent a clear message that the Christian Brothers and their representatives must work in close collaboration with the county staff to make De La Salle University a reality."

Also happy was Eric Bryant, a representative of Los Angeles developer Eli Broad, who has proposed a 245-acre CSUS branch campus on 2,213 acres within the Sunset Industrial area bordering north Roseville.

"All we had hoped to get was some input and feedback from the board to move forward with the process, which is rigorous," Bryant said. "We know which issues we need to address."
--------------------------------------------------------------------