Preliminary Disclosure Questions A–K

Does Erin Morse, Benefits/Insurance Supervisor, RASC, receive any bonus, commission, incentive payment, performance metric credit, favorable performance review consideration, or other direct or indirect compensation — monetary or non-monetary — that is calculated in whole or in part based on: (a) the number of retirees transferred from UC group health plans to Via Benefits; (b) the dollar amount of cost savings achieved through such transfers; or (c) the volume of retiree coverage cases processed to conclusion within a specified timeframe? If so, produce the compensation structure, performance evaluation criteria, and any incentive program documentation. If not, state that for the record.

Does Beverly Jeanine Williams-Cook, Benefits Analyst III, RASC — who was assigned to Harold’s case on January 30, 2026 and issued the February 27, 2026 denial — receive any bonus, commission, incentive payment, performance metric credit, favorable performance review consideration, or other direct or indirect compensation — monetary or non-monetary — that is calculated in whole or in part based on the same criteria identified in Question A? Williams-Cook was assigned Harold’s case, never requested any of his supporting documents, never addressed any of his six prior RASC filings, used a superseded form, left the last digit off her phone number, and issued her denial two days after Harold’s cancer surgery. The speed and apparent lack of substantive review raises the question of whether the determination was driven by case-processing metrics rather than the fiduciary duty of loyalty owed to Harold as a plan participant. Produce Williams-Cook’s compensation structure, performance evaluation criteria, and any incentive program documentation. If no such incentives exist, state that for the record.

Does RASC, as a departmental unit, receive any budgetary allocation, staffing authorization, funding increase, or other institutional benefit based on the number of retirees transferred from UC group plans to Via Benefits, or the cost savings resulting from such transfers? Are RASC supervisors or managers evaluated, in whole or in part, on transfer completion rates or cost reduction targets? Produce any departmental performance metrics, budgetary incentive structures, or cost-savings goals related to the Via Benefits transfer program. If none exist, state that for the record.

What is UC’s total annual cost savings, per retiree, when a retiree is transferred from UC High Option Supplement to Medicare to Via Benefits? Provide the calculation showing: (a) UC’s total employer contribution toward the UC High Option premium — not the retiree’s share, UC’s share; (b) UC’s maximum HRA contribution under Via Benefits ($8,000 per year for retiree plus spouse, per UCnet); and (c) the net difference. State the total number of UC retirees transferred to Via Benefits since the program’s inception. State the aggregate annual cost savings UC has realized from those transfers. If UC has not calculated these figures, state what financial analysis UC conducted before implementing a program that exclusively affects retirees over age 65, consistent with its obligations under the Age Discrimination Act.

Has Erin Morse, Beverly Jeanine Williams-Cook, or any other RASC employee involved in retiree coverage transfer determinations received any non-monetary benefit from Willis Towers Watson, Via Benefits, Elevance Health, Anthem Blue Cross, or any Medicare Advantage plan insurer offered through the Via Benefits platform — including but not limited to: conference invitations, travel reimbursement, seminar attendance, continuing education sponsorship, meals, entertainment, promotional items, or any other item of value? Produce any gift disclosure filings, conference attendance records, or travel reimbursement records for all RASC employees involved in the Via Benefits transfer program for the period January 1, 2020 through the present. If no such benefits have been received, state that for the record.

Produce the complete contract between the University of California and Willis Towers Watson/Via Benefits, including all fee schedules, commission structures, per-enrollee compensation terms, performance bonuses, and volume-based incentive tiers. Specifically: (a) Does Willis Towers Watson receive a per-enrollee fee for each retiree transferred to the Via Benefits platform? If so, state the amount. (b) Does Willis Towers Watson receive any ongoing per-member-per-month payment for each retiree maintained on the Via Benefits platform? If so, state the amount. (c) Does Willis Towers Watson receive any payment, commission, or referral fee from the Medicare Advantage insurers whose plans are offered through the Via Benefits platform? If so, state the amounts by insurer. (d) Are any payments to Willis Towers Watson contingent on transfer volume targets? If UC does not know the answers to these questions, state what due diligence UC conducted before contracting with a firm the DOJ has identified as co-dominant in the retiree exchange market, consistent with UC’s fiduciary obligations under Article XVI, Section 17 of the California Constitution.

(e) It is common practice in the benefits administration industry for employers to staff benefits processing functions with employees of their third-party contractors rather than direct institutional employees. UC has documented this practice in its own workers’ compensation administration, where third-party adjusting companies — including Octagon Risk Services and its successors — were contracted to administer claims on UC’s behalf, with adjusting company representatives contacting claimants directly and making determinations that affected claimants’ benefits and income. The DOJ has identified Willis Towers Watson as co-dominant in the retiree exchange market — describing it as a “two horse race” between Willis Towers Watson and Aon (United States v. Aon plc, Case No. 1:21-cv-01633 (D.D.C.)). Are any RASC employees involved in retiree coverage transfer determinations — including but not limited to Erin Morse (Benefits/Insurance Supervisor) and Beverly Jeanine Williams-Cook (Benefits Analyst III) — employed by, contracted through, seconded from, staffed by, or compensated in any manner by Willis Towers Watson, Via Benefits, or any entity affiliated with the Via Benefits platform? If so, produce the employment or staffing agreement, identify the employer of record for each such individual, and state whether that individual’s compensation is paid in whole or in part by Willis Towers Watson, Via Benefits, or any affiliated entity. If Morse and Williams-Cook are UC employees, state that for the record and confirm that neither receives any form of compensation, benefit, or consideration — direct or indirect — from Willis Towers Watson, Via Benefits, or any affiliated entity. The question is asked because a fiduciary determination regarding whether to transfer a retiree to Via Benefits — made by an individual who is employed by, contracted through, or compensated by the entity that profits from that transfer — would constitute a disqualifying conflict of interest under California Constitution Article XVI, Section 17(b) and would render the determination void.

Does Elevance Health, Inc. (Anthem’s parent company) or any Anthem subsidiary make any payment, rebate, incentive, commission, marketing fee, administrative fee, referral fee, or other direct or indirect transfer of value to: (a) the University of California or any UC entity; (b) RASC or any RASC employee; (c) Willis Towers Watson or Via Benefits; or (d) any third party acting on UC’s behalf — in connection with the transfer of UC retirees from UC group Medigap coverage to Medicare Advantage plans offered through the Via Benefits platform? This question is asked in light of the DOJ’s active False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute complaint alleging that Elevance Health paid broker GoHealth more than $230 million in kickbacks from 2017 to 2021 to steer Medicare beneficiaries into Medicare Advantage plans. A federal judge denied Elevance Health’s motion to dismiss on March 25, 2026, and the case is proceeding to trial. Produce all documentation of any financial relationship between Elevance Health/Anthem and UC, Willis Towers Watson, or Via Benefits related to retiree Medicare coverage transfers. If no such payments exist, state that for the record.

Harold has a documented permanent disability determination (Octagon Risk Services, August 8, 2001, Workers’ Compensation Claim No. 199650445) that has never been revoked, modified, or superseded, as required by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Via Benefits’ own administrator, Joshua Lewis of Willis Towers Watson, confirmed on February 2, 2026 that Harold is ineligible for Via Benefits due to his disability status. UC proceeded with the transfer anyway. The DOJ’s complaint in Shea v. eHealth specifically alleges that certain Medicare Advantage insurers conspired with brokers to discriminate against disabled Medicare beneficiaries — rejecting referrals and strategically directing disabled beneficiaries away from their plans because they were considered costlier to insure. (a) What process did UC follow to ensure that the Via Benefits transfer of a documented disabled retiree complies with the ADA and FEHA? (b) Was any ADA or FEHA compliance review conducted before or during Williams-Cook’s 28-day assignment? If so, produce the review. If not, explain how an adverse coverage action against a documented disabled beneficiary was processed without a disability discrimination compliance review.

UC’s Via Benefits/Medicare Coordinator Program, by definition, exclusively affects retirees who are enrolled in Medicare — meaning retirees age 65 and older (or younger individuals with qualifying disabilities). The program transfers these retirees from UC group Medigap coverage to individual Medicare Advantage plans with network restrictions, prior authorization requirements, geographic service area limitations, and referral requirements that do not exist under their current Medigap coverage. Retirees under age 65 who are not enrolled in Medicare are not subject to these transfers. (a) What age discrimination impact analysis did UC conduct before implementing a program that exclusively affects retirees over 65? (b) Has UC filed the required assurances of compliance with the Age Discrimination Act with the federal agencies providing UC’s financial assistance? (c) Has any retiree under age 65 been involuntarily transferred to a coverage plan with lesser benefits? If not, explain why the adverse coverage action is limited exclusively to the over-65 population.

Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age and disability in any health program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. UC receives federal financial assistance. Harold is simultaneously over 65 and permanently disabled. The coverage transfer at issue moves Harold from a plan with no network restrictions, no prior authorization requirements, and no geographic service area limitations to a program offering only Medicare Advantage plans with all of those restrictions. (a) Has UC designated a Section 1557 coordinator as required by 45 C.F.R. § 92.7? If so, identify that person and state whether they were consulted regarding the Via Benefits transfer program. (b) Has UC conducted the required self-evaluation of its health programs for Section 1557 compliance? If so, produce the evaluation as it relates to the Via Benefits transfer program. (c) Harold reserves the right to file a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights under Section 1557.

Harold is simultaneously: (1) over age 65; (2) permanently disabled per UC’s own contracted administrator’s determination that has never been revoked; (3) a documented whistleblower per UCLA’s own Luskin Center publication; and (4) a participant in a retirement plan administered by fiduciaries who owe him a constitutional duty of loyalty that takes precedence over any other duty. If the Plan Administrator declines to answer any of Questions A through J, that declination will be noted in filings with: CMS (Case #7100158); DMHC (Case #1409109); the California State Auditor (per Gov. Code § 8546.7); the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (ACA Section 1557); and any other regulatory, legislative, or judicial body with jurisdiction. Under California Evidence Code Section 413, the refusal to disclose the financial incentive structure underlying a coverage transfer affecting a person who occupies four simultaneous protected categories permits the inference that the undisclosed information would be adverse to the party withholding it.