Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contract Award topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Health commission approves consent calendar including $3.24M contract; public raises selection concerns
Summary
The commission approved the consent calendar, which included a $3,240,000, one-year contract for recertification support; public commenters questioned the selection of contractor HMA and urged use of a CMS-designated quality improvement organization.
The San Francisco Health Commission approved the meetings consent calendar by voice vote, which included contracts recommended by the Finance and Planning Committee.
One consent item mentioned in public comment was a proposed one-year, $3,240,000 contract described by a commenter as intended to support operational processes related to recertification work. A remote public commenter objected to awarding the work to HMA and urged the department to select HSAG, which the commenter said is listed by CMS as a quality improvement and innovation contractor.
"Why is it being awarded to the highest ranked proposer instead of second highest proposer... Why was HSAG not chosen given their knowledge and CMS designation?" the commenter asked, asserting the proposed contractor "is not a CMS approved... quality improvement expert contractor." The commenter also asked why quarterly CMS-certified expert reviews described in prior presentations were not included in the proposed contract language.
Commission action: The commission proceeded with a motion and approved the consent calendar by voice vote ('Aye'). The meeting record shows the consent calendar was moved, seconded and approved during the meeting (voice vote recorded) and no individual roll-call on individual consent items was recorded in the public segment of the transcript.
Next steps and context: The department and commissioners acknowledged public concern and the heavy lift of data compilation by hospitals. Public commenters and commissioners requested follow-up explanations about contractor selection criteria, contract scope (including whether quarterly independent CMS-certified reviews will occur), and any future contracting related to recertification support.
The commission did not amend or remove the contract during the meeting; questions raised in public comment were left for staff follow-up.
