Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Glendale council approves three-year jail medical contract with Shield Telehealth
Loading...
Summary
The Glendale City Council approved a three-year contract with Shield Telehealth Medical Services to provide jail medical services, citing lower overall cost projections, billing flexibility and added urgent-care access; the vote followed extensive Q&A about pricing, references and procurement options.
The Glendale City Council voted to award a three-year contract, with two one-year renewal options, for jail medical services to Shield Telehealth Medical Services on Feb. 24, approving a not-to-exceed total of $2,018,238.
City staff told the council the RFP process produced two proposals — the incumbent Bridal Medical Services and Shield — and that a four-person evaluation team recommended Shield based on slightly lower five-year costs, a billing structure that spreads overage charges over a four- to six-month cycle, and added services including on-site nursing during peak jail hours and immediate access to a local urgent care.
Interim Police Chief William described the program’s primary goal as keeping officers in the field by providing on-site medical clearances, blood draws and treatment for minor injuries instead of transporting arrestees to emergency rooms. “Our goal is simply to reduce the time officers spent at the hospital,” he said.
Councilmembers pressed staff on how the proposal was priced and evaluated. Staff said the cost model used an average of 50 monthly medical clearances and noted Shield’s approach could reduce months with overage charges by offsetting lower- and higher-use months within a billing cycle. Staff also said Shield waived cancellation and standby fees and operates an urgent-care facility that could expedite clearances that require imaging or other services beyond what a nurse can provide in the jail.
City legal counsel outlined the council’s options if members wished to challenge the procurement: cancel and reissue the RFP; independently re-review proposals under new, documented criteria (with evidentiary support); or depart from the established evaluation criteria and pick another proposer (the latter is not recommended because it could invite legal challenge). The council moved on the staff recommendation following that advice.
A councilmember made the motion to approve the award and a second was recorded. The clerk conducted a roll-call vote and all present members voted yes, approving the contract.
City staff said the contract term includes a clause allowing termination for convenience with 30 days’ notice. The council did not adopt any additional conditions at the dais; staff will return with contract documents for execution and implementation details.
