Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Population Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFHSS outlines population-health measurement plan; board asks for timeline and subgroup data
Summary
A staff update described SFHSSefforts to standardize health measures, analyze health disparities across employee race/ethnicity, and build baselines with health-plan partners; commissioners requested a clearer timeline, actives-vs-retirees breakdown, and job-classification analysis.
San Francisco Health Service System staff presented a population-health and measurement update on Nov. 18 that mapped the program—s early work on data standardization, disparities analysis, and a three-year approach to set baselines and improvement goals.
Derek, a senior health planner at SFHSS, told the board the department has begun inventorying data from health-plan partners, identifying areas with higher prevalence or cost, and planning a standard measurement set aligned with NCQA so plans can be compared "apples to apples." He said preliminary analyses show disparities in behavioral, metabolic, and musculoskeletal conditions across race and ethnicity in the city workforce and that the next steps are to prioritize actionable measures and improve race-stratified reporting.
Commissioners pressed for concrete next steps: several asked for a broad timeline tied to the strategic-plan refresh (year 1: baseline and standards; year 2: set attainment goals; year 3: measure incremental improvement), and requested disaggregated reporting by actives versus retirees and by job classification or commute patterns. Commissioner Scott and others asked staff to identify what is within SFHSSsphere of influence versus broader social determinants requiring other agencies or partners. Derek and Executive Director Yap said the team will continue working with health plans and the department of human resources to refine the measurement set and hoped to produce a baseline and improvement goals in the coming year.
The presentation was framed as education and planning rather than a regulatory proposal; the board did not take formal action but asked staff for clearer timelines and additional breakdowns to support decision-making.
