Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medicare Advantage Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines staff recommendation to switch retiree Medicare Advantage PPO to Blue Shield
Summary
After a multi-hour presentation and extensive public comment, the Health Service Board voted 4-3 against the staff recommendation to replace UnitedHealthcare with Blue Shield of California as the MAPD PPO carrier effective 01/01/2025; staff'presented projected savings, implementation steps and network/formulary analyses.
The San Francisco Health Service Board on the staff'recommended plan to replace UnitedHealthcare with Blue Shield of California as the Health Service System's Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) passive PPO carrier.
Staff proposed, effective Jan. 1, 2025, to add Blue Shield of California as the MAPD PPO carrier and to discontinue UnitedHealthcare's MAPD PPO and several UHC non-Medicare plans. Executive Director Abby Yant and procurement manager Michael Visconti described a multi-year evaluation and an RFP process with a six-member evaluation panel and Aon as actuarial advisor. Aon lead actuary Mike Clark presented financial scoring that showed Blue Shield as the top-ranked bidder and projected savings "as much as $67,000,000" over 2025'27 using the quoted rates and not-to-exceed caps.
Staff also summarized nonfinancial scoring: network replication, formulary review, CMS star ratings and performance guarantees. The presentation noted about 17,159 Blue Shield members and roughly 34,498 enrolled lives in related Blue Shield plans, and estimated minimal pharmacy disruption: of ~791,000 annual scripts, about 17,000 could face higher member cost, ~5,200 could yield lower cost for members, and only ~332 scripts would be unavailable on Blue Shield's formulary.
Commissioners pressed staff on the scoring rubric, the confidentiality of sub-weightings, what counts as a "caveat" that could change future rates, and whether Blue Shield's 3-year guaranteed rates could be reopened under defined exceptions. Staff said Blue Shield provided fixed 3-year quotations while UHC and Anthem provided rate increase caps for out years; scoring used those caps for UnitedHealthcare and Anthem. Post-scoring outreach from staff to Blue Shield clarified that up to 94% of providers were either contracted or had a recent history of accepting Medicare, a clarification staff said reduced expected network disruption though it occurred after the formal scoring release.
Public comment was lengthy and largely opposed the change. Speakers included retirees, union representatives and health professionals who cited previous negative experiences with Blue Shield, anxiety about losing providers (including UCSF and local community pharmacies), concerns about the adequacy of Blue Shield's performance guarantees, and skepticism about how a lower bid could provide equivalent service. Staff emphasized that passive PPO design allows members to continue seeing providers who accept Medicare and described a three-phase outreach plan and preloading of authorizations to preserve continuity of care.
After public comment, the board voted on the staff recommendation. The roll call returned four No votes and three Yes votes; the staff recommendation therefore failed and UnitedHealthcare will remain the incumbent MAPD PPO for now.
Why it matters: The decision preserves the current carrier for the retiree MAPD PPO and keeps UnitedHealthcare as the incumbent for the immediate plan year. The issue exposed tensions between short-term cost savings and continuity of care for retirees, many of whom expressed strong opposition at the meeting.
Next steps: Staff retains the ability to continue negotiations, revisit procurement design, or return with revised proposals; commissioners asked staff to continue targeted member outreach and to provide further detail on performance guarantees and any potential contract triggers that could change rates in later years.
