Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Plan Networks topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board agrees to have staff test Sutter Health Plus rates as possible 2017 option

Health Service System Board, City and County of San Francisco · January 14, 2016
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Sutter Health Plus presented a vertically integrated provider‑sponsored plan and asked HSS to allow Aon Hewitt to calculate rates; the board directed staff to pursue rate and benefit comparisons and to return with analysis, while commissioners and public raised network narrowness and retiree access concerns.

Sutter Health representatives introduced Sutter Health Plus as a vertically integrated, capitated plan expanding into the Bay Area and requested that HSS let staff and Aon Hewitt pursue rate and benefit modeling for possible inclusion in 2017. Rob Cardenrolli outlined the plan’s footprint, provider partners (including local hospital relationships) and growth metrics; CEO Steve Bilte described governance, shared‑risk features and flexibility to build accountability measures into contracts.

Board members and public commenters raised questions about the plan’s narrow network in some counties, the effect on retirees and the need for transition plans when a plan excludes established physicians. Commissioners pressed Sutter representatives on whether they would provide data feeds for the HSS all‑payer claims database (APCD) and whether the plan’s smaller membership base would give reliable actuarial experience. Sutter’s CEO said the plan is willing to share data and to negotiate shared‑risk and performance arrangements.

After discussion the board directed staff to include Sutter Health Plus in the rates‑and‑benefits process and asked Aon Hewitt to compute comparative rate scenarios for the 2017 plan year. The board did not adopt Sutter as a plan at the meeting; it requested follow‑up analysis on retiree impact, network breadth, member transition protections and contract language to lock rates or terms for multiple years if needed.