Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Care Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves health-care security ordinance changes in first reading after contentious debate
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors advanced an amendment to the city's Health Care Security Ordinance on first reading after hours of debate on whether the change would close a consumer- and worker-protection gap or impose undue costs on local businesses.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday advanced amendments to the Health Care Security Ordinance (HCSO) intended to close what supporters described as a loophole that had allowed employers to collect funds labeled for worker health care but not ensure the money was used for medical services.
Supporters led by Supervisor David Campos said the change protects workers and consumers by requiring that money collected to pay for employee health care be spent to provide health care. "When you go to a restaurant and the restaurant owner makes a representation to you as a customer, that they're going to provide health care to the workers of that restaurant, every single cent that you pay on that bill should in fact go to health care as represented," Campos told the board.
Opponents, including Supervisors Scott Wiener and Eric Mar, argued the amendments risked unintended economic consequences and could put local jobs at risk. Wiener described the measure as an effort to fix "a loophole" but warned the ordinance as drafted could harm small and mid-sized businesses; he said the board should craft a solution that fixes the identified problem without inflicting disproportionate cost on employers.
To address some business concerns, the sponsor amended the ordinance on the floor to clarify account closure timing and other procedural matters; Supervisor Campos offered a clarifying amendment that the board accepted to specify an 18-month account-closure timeline after termination of employment. He described that adjustment as a compromise intended to provide "certainty and clarity" for employers.
After several hours of testimony from organized labor, health advocates and business representatives -- and with many residents in the room arguing both that the change was necessary to protect workers and that it would harm local businesses -- the board took a roll-call vote. The tally on the amended ordinance (first reading) was 6 ayes and 5 noes (Cohen, Kim, Marr, Mercarimi and Campos voted yes; Ellsberg and Weiner were among the no votes noted in the roll call). The clerk recorded the ordinance as passed on first reading.
What the measure would do: The amendment makes clear that employer-collected amounts that are represented to customers or employees as payments for employee health care are to be spent on health care services (and not retained for other business uses). Sponsors argued this is consumer protection as well as worker protection.
Why it mattered: Supporters said the change fulfills the original promise of the HCSO; opponents cautioned that it could increase costs for some businesses and push jobs out of the city. Several supervisors called for follow-up analysis and implementation reports.
Next steps: Because the ordinance passed first reading, it will return to the board for a second reading and final vote; the board and staff signaled further negotiations and adjustments are possible in the weeks ahead.
