As noted in this post, the number of people seeking out Title X services has dropped dramatically in the two years since the contract was awarded to Christ Community Health Services.
Friday, I received a mailer asking people to call and email in support of this resolution.
I can’t tell you how important this is.
So while it may be the weekend, you can send emails, call the County Commission on Monday, or plan to attend the 1:30 meeting.
Here is the number to call: 901-222-1000
Ask the staff to take your name and address and ask Commissioners to support Steve Mulroy’s resolution to re-bid the Title (X) 10 contract now.
Ask them to give the message to all 13 Commissioners.
Email a message to: Tamisha.Draper@shelbycountytn.gov and ask that it be forwarded to all 13 Commissioners. Make sure to include the message: “Please support Commissioner Mulroy’s resolution to rebid the Title X (10) contract” with your personal message, name and address.
The meeting begins at 1:30. They often start a few minutes late, but get there early to ensure you get a good seat.
The Title X resolution can be read here.
Attending the meeting is a good way to make a show of support. Go with a group of people. Wear the same color to show the Commissioners you’re part of a larger organizing effort.
Not everyone is comfortable speaking at public meetings, but it is important that some people, other than the usual suspects do. This ensures there is a record of support for the resolution.
Here’s a quick primer on how to do it.
When you get to the meeting, go up front and see the deputy for a speakers card. Fill it out, and turn it in.
The Title X resolution is the 17th item on the agenda. It could get deferred to another meeting or delayed to a later time in the meeting.
DO NOT LET DELAY TACTICS KEEP YOU FROM SPEAKING OUT. If the issue is delayed or deferred to another meeting and they don’t hear from the public, go back up and let the deputy know you still want to address the committee during the public statements portion of the meeting.
Sometimes with delays they will still hear from the public, especially if there are a lot of people there to speak on an issue, but that is entirely up the the Commission.
If you do speak, be respectful. No one will listen to a person being rude of impolite. Take notes, or a prepared statement. Keep it short, sweet, and to the point (there’s usually a 2 minute limit).
I know there are a lot of people still stinging from the last Title X vote nearly two years ago. Don’t let old feelings stop you from taking the opportunity to be a part of righting the situation.
This issue is bigger than any one individual.
Please consider taking a little (or a lot) of time and work to pass this resolution.
Today is the day that I and several others go before the County Commission seeking appointment to the body through August 2012. This issue will not be settled today, but what happens today will have a pretty big impact on what happens next Monday, when the Commission takes it to a vote.
The Daily News reports that I and five others have applied for the position. Of course, the County Commission is not bound by the applications and can appoint whomever it wants. Also, there’s a good chance that there will be some additional faces before the Commission today seeking the appointment.
While this is a big deal, I don’t think its the biggest deal before the County Commission. That distinction goes to the Title X grant funds that the Health and Hospitals Committee will take up at 9:45 am.
The Commercial Appeal reports this morning that Commissioner Walter Bailey may be looking to change his vote. At the last Committee meeting Bailey was one of several Democrats that voted to defer the issue.
Today, the Commission will vote to send it to either send it to the full body or block it. An approval today isn’t the end of the world. That said, it is call for concern. Considering the makeup of the body, it will only take one more decision change from a Democratic commissioner to award the money to Christ Community Health Center. If it stays as it is through Monday, the 6-6 split will likely cause the issue to be rebid.
Of all the issues I raised in the series of posts mentioned above, the one issue that seems to have the most weight is that of staffing. The RFP mentions that staff must be in place. PPGMR, which primarily provides women’s health services, already has that staff in place. CCHC, by contrast, notes in their RFP that they will have to hire as many as 7 staffers to fulfill the contract.
This would seem to disqualify CCHC.
There are many more questions that need to be answered, and despite the political environment, and the potential vote outcome. These questions need to be answered before this issue is voted on.
You can watch the proceedings here.
Health and Hospitals starts at 9:45. General Government is scheduled to start at 11.
Over the past week I’ve written several posts about the contract to provide Family Planning services to individuals in Shelby County. The first post dealt with the political issues involved. The second post took a look at the services to be provided and inconsistencies in scoring based on the quantity of those services. Yesterday I pointed out concerns relating to the ability and/or willingness of one of the potential contractors to fulfill the requirements of the Title X program. Unfortunately, the County didn’t respond to my inquiry about who asked the questions that would lead one to believe they could not fulfill these requirements on the grounds of their “ethical beliefs”.
On Sunday, Wendi Thomas at the Commercial Appeal wrote an article about the issue, and brought up some additional concerns. In that article, she quoted a previous article where the founding physician of CCHC indicated they would not follow the letter of the regulation relating to referrals for pregnancy termination. From her article:
“We really try to provide women with other options and make sure they have those possibilities. And if they at the end still want a pregnancy termination, we know they know where to go,” Rick Donlon told The Commercial Appeal last month. (Source)
There’s one simple truth about receiving public money for a service:
“Play by the rules, or the money goes away.”
For something like Family Planning, the cost of the money going away is huge. The thousands of people served by these funds would be left abandoned without the benefit of these services. If they go away that means a whole lot of women will get pregnant, quite possibly at a time when they aren’t ready. The pressures that unwanted pregnancy will place on them, and the community at large, are huge. Quite honestly, we can’t afford to play games with this money.
I understand there are those in state and local government that have a problem with PPGMR, who has been providing the services for some time in this community. I wish they would acknowledge that those problems have little to do with the actual services that PPGMR renders with this money, and more to do with a service they provide that the money doesn’t touch. Remember, no Federal money can go for providing abortions according to the Hyde Amendment.
That said, Title X funds recipients are bound by the terms of their contract to refer women who ask to a place that does provide abortion. Saying “I think they know where to go” doesn’t fit with the demands the money places on the provider.
There’s another issue that I haven’t touched on, and that’s of staffing. PPGMR already has staff in place to serve people under this program. They’ve been doing it for years, so of course they do. CCHS doesn’t. They explicitly list that they will have to hire 7 people just to execute the contract (you can find this on p. 14-15 of their proposal). That’s a huge problem. How long will it take to get that staff in place and trained? What makes CCHS so much different from the Health Department, who initially refused the money for the very same reasons? Why does CCHS think they can ramp up services quickly enough to be an effective provider?
Another really important question on this same line is why isn’t this weakness in the CCHS proposal reflected in the scores given by the 6 member ad-hoc purchasing panel? The RFP itself expressly states that the personnel must be in place. Here’s the section from page 15 of the RFP:
That this weakness in the CCHS proposal isn’t reflected in the scores, nor addressed in any official statement from the Shelby County Government, raises many questions about the fairness of the process. This is something that all the evaluators need to account for, as it is listed as a requirement, not a goal.
On Wednesday at 9:45 am the Health and Hospitals Committee will take this issue up again. As of right now there’s 1 hour scheduled for the discussion, though I feel certain that it will last much longer than that. I hope that the Commissioners give the issues I’ve raised over the past several posts a serious look. The lives of thousands of people in Shelby County are depending on them to exercise their oversight over the Administration, and get real answers.
Considering the challenges we already have in Shelby County with poverty, infant mortality and teen pregnancy, it hardly seems like a time to politicize a process that will directly impact some of the most at risk individuals in our community.
We’ll see on Wednesday.
Thanks again for reading.
When we last left off, I had just finished taking a look at the proposed services to be provided by both PPGMR and CCHC. In addition, we took a look at the individual scores from the six evaluators. I raised some questions about their choices and noted that we’d talk about that more here. Well here we go.
As a part of just about every RFP I’ve ever seen, there is a question period where potential providers get to ask questions, and hopefully get them answered.
This RFP process was no different. Prospective contractors submitted 18 questions and, for the most part, got some answers. From the questions, I’m pretty sure at least one of the potential providers wasn’t too happy about the answers.
Let’s make this easy and start with the first question.
Q: In providing information about pregnancy termination, is it sufficient to have the referral information in writing?
The rest of the answer goes on to say that patients need to be counseled, not handed a card and sent on their way.
The next question follows the same theme:
Q: If the information about pregnancy termination is provided, is the contractor allowed to indicate in wiriting (NOT coerce) – on a referral sheet or in the office- that
a. it does not provide that service because of its beliefs.
b. or, is the contractor never allowed to indicate its position or why it does not offer the service.
A: (to both questions) No, followed by a long paragraph about the importance of face to face counseling and how the “beliefs of the contractor about pregnancy termination should not be part of a process.”
Whoever asked this question wants to say they don’t believe in abortion to their patients and thinks that will somehow not be coercive? When did medicine become about beliefs? Last time I checked abortion was a medically approved and legal procedure. If a contractor doesn’t feel comfortable referring out, then maybe they shouldn’t be considered. In any case, it seems pretty clear from the way these first two questions were asked that they came from the same prospective contractor.
The next interesting question is number 13.
P.12, paragraph 5: If a contraceptive method is not provided on site by a provider because of the provider’s ethical beliefs, can the provider refer the client to another Title X provider who offers this method? If so, does the referring provider have to pay for the service?
Wait, wait, wait… Contraceptive method? A contraceptive method is against the providers ethical beliefs? Why would they want to engage in this line of work if a medically accepted form of contraception is against their “ethical beliefs”?
To be honest, these three questions left me flabbergasted. Certainly individuals and associations of people are allowed to hold their own beliefs. Certainly, different physicians and networks of physicians have different preferred treatment plans. There’s plenty of room for this diversity out there in the private sector. However, when you choose to enter the public sector by seeking a contract for public dollars, you are bound by the requirements those public dollars place on you. If those requirements are unpalatable to you, then perhaps you shouldn’t seek them.
The questioners aren’t identified so I asked the woman with the Shelby County Government who received the questions if she could identify the questioners for me. Unfortunately, I never received a response to my request. In fact, I never even got a response saying a response couldn’t be provided.
Since I didn’t get an answer from the County on this issue, I decided to take a look at the mission statements of the contractors. Maybe that holds the key to making an educated guess about who asked these questions. Here’s the first one.
Christ Community Health Services will provide high-quality health care to the underserved in the context of distinctively Christian service. We recognize that Jesus Christ is the true healer of individuals and their communities and the source of our ability to serve. (Source)
Now look, I don’t think an organizations beliefs excludes them from serving. They may choose, based on those beliefs, that they don’t want to perform the service or receive the funds. However, I don’t think that being a religious organization is an automatic exclusion. From a practical standpoint, it can’t be. That said, the three questions listed above leave some serious doubt that whoever asked them can provide the services required by Title X.
Nowhere in the RFP is it noted that questions are confidential, or whether or not they will be considered in the evaluation process, so it’s interesting that the County hasn’t responded to my request. The questions are, no doubt, subject to public disclosure. In the interest of full disclosure and the public interest the Administration should list which prospective contractors asked which questions, and whether or not those questions were considered in the evaluations of the proposals.
Of course, had the questions been considered in the evaluation process, it still might not have changed the outcome. The way the score sheets are structured there are 52 points up for grabs in very subjective categories, and no listed benchmarks to be met. That leaves a lot of wiggle room to let your “beliefs” guide you.
As we saw in the previous post, there was a great deal of variation in the scoring, particularly from political appointees. Because specific benchmarks for the scoring of these 52 points are not explicitly laid out in the RFP its hard to know what metrics were used, or explain this variation in any way other than personal preference. Further, because there is such variation in the number of services to be provided, one is left to conclude again that personal preference played a greater role in the process than we’ve been led to believe.
Because of the way the proposals are structured, there’s no way for the evaluations to be “blind”. This, of course, means that anyone with a predisposition against one of the prospective providers would be free to exercise that perspective. Further, because the questions submitted during the Q & A period were apparently not included in the evaluations, the evaluators may not have been aware of the depths of “belief” or ethical conflicts that exist with, what is most likely only one of the prospective contractors. This seems like a huge oversight and opens many potential problems for the County and the people who receive these Title X services.
Tomorrow morning I’ll wrap up my coverage of this issue, with a recap of what we’ve seen thus far, and some additional information that has come my way in the past few days.
Thanks for reading.
As noted in my last post, there has been a great deal of politicization of this issue, not just at the state and local level, but nationally. What gets lost in this political tug of war are the people who stand to benefit most from the family planning services that would be provided. This issue is more than just about unplanned pregnancies and STD’s, its also about arming people with the information that will help them reach their fullest potential educationally and professionally.
Study after study has shown that women who have children before they complete their education are far less likely to do so. This negatively impacts their income potential, and in the long run, many more things.
From this frame, the importance of family planning takes on a different character. Family planning is not just about stopping unwanted pregnancy or slowing the rate of STD infection, but it also is a workforce development strategy. The fewer unintended pregnancies that occur in women at an early age, the more likely they are to finish High School, College, and perhaps more.
With all this in mind, the numbers matter, and that’s what we’re going to look at today.
Going by the numbers
The RFP’s presented by Planned Parenthood and Christ Community Health Center (ed note: CCHC also has this program work plan that wasn’t included in my copy) detail the services each group plans to provide and the means by which they intend to proved them.
While both plans deal with many of the same things the quantities are different. The following table is a breakdown of the services that both organizations offer, and the quantities.
|Services||Planned Parenthood||Christ Community
|Proposed number of Clients to be served over the 9 month period of the contract||3500
Reference – p. 19
Reference – p.1 CCHC work plan
|Provide Preventative health care services (includes testing for breast cancer, cervical cancer, STD, and HIV)||2000 HIV tests
6000 Gonorreah tests
30 Gardasil vaccinations
2500 Clinical Breast Exams
2500 Pap tests
Reference p. 18,19
|No number given|
|Contraception||130+ Long Acting Reversible Contraception
650 Emergency Contraception
No other mention of contraception in the work plan
|Pregnancy Testing||5000 pregnancy tests||None listed|
|Other Services listed||3000 3 month supplies of 400 mcg folic acid|
It should be noted that in the actual RFP, Christ Community lists that some 3375 individuals will be served over the 9 month period of the contract, however, their work plan lists 2000. This inconsistency should have caused a good deal of confusion with the individuals scoring the proposals. However, the score sheets show no markdown for this inconsistency.
Another thing of concern in the CCHC proposal is the absence of current Family Planning staff. Both the narrative and the work plan list that staff will be hired upon receiving the contract. This should have raised serious questions by the evaluators, yet this, again, is not evidenced by the score sheets.
So what of those score sheets? You can see them here, and that’s where we take back up the political angle of this story.
Confronting the Judges
From looking at the information provided above, it appears that there might have been a mistake, to put it mildly, but it was noted in the County Commission meeting on September 21st that Planned Parenthood had lodged a complaint and that complaint was found to be without merit. One of the Commissioners characterized this as a contractor that was just complaining because they didn’t win, but it seems like there’s a little more to it than that.
In order to really get at the judging, you need to know who the judges were. Here’s the list:
Yvonne Madlock – Director of the Shelby County Health Department
Harvey Kennedy – Shelby County CAO
Bill Powell – Shelby County Criminal Justice Coordinator
Kim Hackney – Shelby County Director of Legislative Affairs/Sr. Policy Advisor
Dr. Kenneth Robinson – Shelby County Public Health Policy Advisor
Dr. Helen Morrow – Acting Shelby County Health Officer
First and foremost, I don’t want to besmirch the names of these individuals. They are all serving the public in their official capacities and I’m sure they’re good people. Some have medical or public health training, others do not. Some are appointees from the current administration, others are holdovers. I’m not interested in attacking anyone, but I do think there is a good deal of cause to question the choices made by some of these evaluators. So, rather than make a claim I’ll try to either ask a question or point out an interesting pattern.
Below is a spreadsheet with all the evaluators scores for both PPGMR and CCHC. Each organization’s scores are on their own sheet.
What is, perhaps, most interesting about these scores is that the three top political appointees for the administration on this evaluation team scored Planned Parenthood in the 80’s, despite far more bang for the buck in terms of service delivery. The primary determinant is the “Clinical Services” section listed on page 29 of the RFP. While the CCHC scores show little variation, the PPGMR scores vary wildly with a 10 point range. That’s some serious disagreement.
Now, it could be argued that because CCHC has six locations, they should have been scored higher. I would agree with you if they had staff currently in place, but as I noted before, they do not. Six locations, with no staff to serve these individuals is about like having zero locations or six “potential” locations. Why on earth would anyone rate that unfulfilled potential between 5 and 10 points higher than a provider that has one location that is, you know, actually functioning.
“Project Approach” is the other area of variation. The section is too lengthy to quote or screen cap, but you can find it on page 26 of the RFP.
This seems to be directly related to the services that the prospective contractors will provide. As I showed above, PPGMR proposes to provide a good deal more to more people than CCHC, so one has to wonder why PPGMR was rated below CCHC?
I’m not going to lob any charges at anyone. I don’t know these people. But I am going to say that it might be a good idea for them to start thinking about how they’re going to explain these scores if the process was truly unbiased, as asserted in the Committee meeting on September 21. It doesn’t seem very likely that some of the highest ranking people in the current administration would miss these huge discrepancies in services, and rank the vendor that proposes to provide less higher, but either they did, or they went in with a purpose in mind. In either case, this certainly doesn’t instill much faith in the process.
This has been a long post, and of course, there’s more to it that what I’ve presented so far. That said, in the area of pure levels of service, PPGMR has proposed to do much more than CCHC. On that account alone there are some serious questions to be raised about the scoring process. At the end of the day the big goal should be the number of people served. That’s the thing that will combat teen pregnancy, infant mortality, and an increase in the incidence of STD’s. Based on the information I’ve reviewed, I’m not seeing that CCHC is providing more of anything.
What’s worse, there are more questions about CCHC, like just how committed they are to following through will delivering all the accepted methods of family planning.
That’s coming up in my next post.