Socorro ISD trustees and staff on June 24 heard emotional public testimony from clinic clinicians and physicians and a detailed presentation from district administrators and University Medical Center (UMC) about a proposed transition from the district-run on-site employee clinic to a UMC-operated near-site clinic.

Speakers at the meeting described the on-site clinic as a high-value service for employees. Jennifer Feeley, a nurse practitioner who worked at the SISD employee clinic, said the district's previous annual operating budget "ranged from $800,000 to $1,200,000," supporting a physician, two nurse practitioners, a physician assistant, seven medical assistants and other staff. Feeley said the board's proposal "is a reduction in services, a reduction in access, and a reduction in outcomes" and warned the change would shift costs and reduce continuity of care.

Dr. Alba Nydia Nevarez, a physician who worked in the clinic, told trustees the clinic had provided value-based care and medical savings. "We built more than a clinic. We built a model focused on value based care, high quality, personalized health care that improved outcomes and reduced costs," she said, and added that in 2023 the clinic recorded "over 10,000 visits on a $1,200,000 budget" and served "nearly 4,000 patients." Both speakers urged the board to preserve the higher level of in-house services.

District administration acknowledged the concerns and said it is continuing to review an interlocal agreement received from UMC. Human resources chief Selena Stiles said the board packet did not include the UMC interlocal agreement to allow members time to review it and that administration would return the item for action at the July meeting. Carlos Carmona, who led the district presentation, summarized the aims: reduce operational costs, align with long-term wellness objectives, and partner with a community provider to preserve primary-care access.

UMC representatives outlined two contracting models:

- Fee-for-service model: a $175 flat charge per primary-care visit (UMC aligns that to Medicare benchmark levels); employees would pay a $10 per-visit fee under the district health plans and the district would be billed the remainder. The model includes a predefined set of lab tests and pharmacy services; additional labs and durable medical equipment would be itemized.

- Flat-rate (near-site) model: an annual flat fee proposal of $875,000 to cover a dedicated near-site program with two nurse practitioners, two medical assistants and two schedulers assigned to SISD employees. UMC estimated the flat rate would equal about $146 per visit if the district recorded 6,000 visits annually; the firm said it could scale staffing and pricing if volumes were higher or lower.

UMC said the preferred near-site location would be at 1521 Joe Battle Boulevard. The district indicated a target date of Sept. 30 for the on-site clinic closure if a vendor contract is executed; HR said UMC's agreement still required administrative review. UMC staff also said the near-site clinic offers imaging, a full laboratory and a retail pharmacy, and emphasized care coordination for patient transitions.

Trustees asked operational questions about staffing, pharmacy pricing and whether the near-site clinic could be expanded to additional locations later. UMC said the flat-rate model would allow the district to dedicate staff who would provide a consistent experience for employees; the fee-for-service model would be more variable depending on patient volume. The district said it would help employees find alternative primary-care providers during the transition and would publish lists of providers accepting new patients.

No contract was approved on June 24. Administration said it would bring the interlocal agreement back for board review at the July meeting after legal and operational review; staff also said they would continue community outreach so employees and covered dependents understand options and access during any transition.

Discussion distinction: the meeting record includes public comment and staff presentations (discussion); the board did not direct a final contract award (no formal action on procurement), only a commitment to return with the reviewed agreement in July.

Speakers and staff provided specific financial and utilization figures during public comment and the UMC presentation; trustees asked for additional data and time to review the interlocal agreement before taking action.