Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jfs Hospital Case Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve hospital-based JFS case managers after public commenter raises child-placement concerns
Summary
The Franklin County Board approved a 12-month contract placing Job and Family Services case managers at Mount Carmel hospitals while a public commenter urged the board to delay the contract and alleged past improper sibling placements and conflicts of interest; county officials offered to follow up offline and the prosecutor said investigations would require an investigative body.
Get email alerts on the Jfs Hospital Case Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Franklin County Board of Commissioners on April 28 approved Resolution 266-26, a 12-month contract placing Job and Family Services (JFS) case managers at Mount Carmel East and Mount Carmel St. An's hospitals to provide on-site eligibility determinations and referrals for residents, as presented by Carmen Barnes, chief operating officer for JFS.
The contract was presented as a way to speed service access for patients and to station case managers who can assess needs and connect people to county-administered programs, Barnes said. The board moved and seconded adoption and recorded the vote; Commissioners recorded on the record included Commissioner Boyce and Commissioner Orady in favor.
Why it matters: County staff said on-site case management shortens the time needed for Medicaid and other benefit determinations and helps link patients to community resources. Supporters say these placements improve continuity of care and enable immediate referrals when needs arise.
Public comment and allegations: Before the vote, a public commenter who identified herself as Hola Zuffer urged the commissioners to delay the contract and to amend it to include clearer public details about case managers’ responsibilities and which public-assistance programs patients would be referred to. Zuffer said, based on her experience as a licensed foster and adoptive parent, that she believes some hospital-related placements had blurred ethical lines and led to improper sibling separations and a lack of transparency. She described a case in which a newborn was placed with a hospital employee and said she had experienced difficulty getting clear answers from agencies about placement decisions.
Zuffer said in part: “I would strongly urge the commissioners to delay a decision on this resolution until it is amended to provide details on the specific responsibilities of such positions and the public assistance programs holistically that the patients could be referred to.”
Officials’ response and follow-up: County Administrator Kenneth Wilson told the speaker these long-standing agreements are limited to JFS and do not grant case managers access to Franklin County Children Services’ systems. Commissioner Boyce and others thanked the speaker for raising concerns and asked county human-services staff to follow up. The board’s deputy county administrator, Chris Long, and the prosecutor’s office offered to meet with the commenter to gather information; the prosecutor’s representative clarified that the prosecutor’s office does not conduct investigations and would require an investigative body to refer potential criminal matters before taking prosecutorial action.
What the contract does and limits: County staff said the on-site case manager under this agreement is prohibited from accessing child-welfare case files controlled by Franklin County Children Services; the contracts are structured to provide eligibility determination and referral support for programs such as Medicaid and SNAP. The agenda and resolution language linked with the item include the contract term and general scope; the commenter asked for more specific language on referral pathways and data-access safeguards.
Next steps: Commissioners and county staff said they would meet with the commenter offline and directed agency staff to provide additional information about the contract’s scope and the public documents that explain contractor responsibilities. The board adopted the resolution during the same session.
Information from the record: The resolution and related agenda language were presented under item 266-26. The public comment and follow-up offers occurred immediately before the recorded adoption vote.

