Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA - 05061994 - CCC MEETING WITH DISTRICT HOSPITAL REPRESENTATIVES AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PARTIAL REPLACEMENT OF MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Friday, May 6, 1994 1: 30 P.M. Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier' s Office 2301 Stanwell Drive Concord 1 . CONSIDER DISTRICT HOSPITAL RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: A. LEGAL AND "BEILENSON" HEARING ISSUES ♦ Can the district hospitals assure the County there will not be a Title VI Federal Civil Rights Act violation as a result of transferring care from the County Hospital to the district hospitals? ♦ Are the district hospitals and their medical staffs prepared to fully comply with the requirements of Health & Safety Code S 1442 .5? ♦ Are the district hospitals prepared to pay for the costs of defending the County in lawsuits from poverty group attorneys, union attorneys, citizen groups and others who may try to prevent the contracting with the district hospitals? B. MEDICAL STAFF INTEGRATION ♦ What are the district hospitals ' medical staffs prepared to agree to? ♦ Can the district hospitals commit to providing the County's physicians with privileges comparable to those they enjoy at Merrithew Memorial Hospital? ♦ How will the district hospitals deal with the situation where they are asked to provide the County's physicians with a scope of privileges that the medical staff has historically been unwilling to grant to its own physicians (i .e. , surgical obstetrical privileges being granted to family practice physicians) ? ♦ What "buy-in" can the administrators and boards of the district hospitals guarantee on behalf of their medical staffs? ♦ How can we jointly overcome the attitude of some private physicians who have indicated at least privately that they fully support a County Hospital to care for County patients? ♦ Do the district hospitals understand that through the disproportionate share funding the County subsidizes inpatient physician reimbursements . If this funding source is not available, we cannot provide this subsidy and may lose all of our inpatient medical staff . ♦ Do the district hospitals understand that the only way they can become qualified for a disproportionate share payment similar to what the County has 'been receiving is to admit sufficient Medi-Cal and indigent patients to qualify as a disproportionate share facility and that this may require -establishing a track record which may cost the, district hospitals some money in the meantime? C. LABOR AND EMPLOYEE RIGHTS ISSUES ♦ How would the district hospitals resolve the need to provide transferability and continuity to County employees ' vested pension rights? ♦ How would the district hospitals guarantee that County employees would be able to transfer their current County seniority to a district hospital? ♦ How would the district hospitals resolve issues regarding County employees ' current base salary, amount of vacation and sick leave accruals, holiday pay and shift differential when they transfer to a district hospital? ♦ How would the district hospitals resolve issues regarding County employees ' promotion, transfer, and bumping rights when they transfer to a district hospital? ♦ What are the district hospitals prepared to do to address differences in workload standards, requirements about working hours (part-time, permanent-intermittent, shift assignments) and other variations which may exist between the County' s and the district hospitals ' personnel practices at present? ♦ How will disagreements about which union represents County workers who transfer to a district hospital be resolved? 2 D. LAYOFF AND TRANSFER OF COUNTY EMPLOYEES ♦ How will County staff who are subject to demotion or layoff as a result of a contract with the district hospitals be absorbed by the district hospitals? ♦ Will the district hospitals commit to hiring a number of current County employees which is proportional to the number of beds in a facility for which the County is contracting? ♦ Will the district hospitals commit to guaranteeing County employees the same level of rights as an employee of a district, hospital that they have enjoyed at the County Hospital? 2 . CONSIDER PROPOSAL FROM'DISTRICT HOSPITALS REGARDING A PER DIEM RATE FOR INDIGENT PATIENTS, INCLUDING JAIL AND ACUTE PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS 3. DUE DILIGENCE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AMONG MT. DIABLO, BROOKSIDE AND MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITALS 4 . CONSIDER COMMENTS FROM THE DISTRICT HOSPITALS OR THE COUNTY ON ITEMS UNDER DISCUSSION 5 . PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY ITEM UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE 6 . ADJOURN TO: Friday, May 13, 1994 3 :00 P.M. Supervisor DeSaulnier's Office 2301 Stanwell Drive, Concord 7 . PROPOSED FUTURE MEETING DATE: Thursday, May 19, 1994 3 :00 P.M. Supervisor DeSaulnier's Office 2301 Stanwell Drive, Concord 3 SUPPLEMENTAL CALENDAR OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS FOR THE BOARD, OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD SUPERVISOR MARK DeSAULNIER'S OFFICE 2301 STANWELL DRIVE, CONCORD CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, MAY 6 , 1994 , 4 : 30 P.M. A. EXISTING LITIGATION - CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL. (LITIGATION HAS BEEN FORMALLY INITIATED, GOV. CODE, 54956 . 9 (A) . ) , CASES: Town of Danville, et a1. v. Co. of Contra Costa, et al. , No. C93-00231; East Bay Muni. Util. Dist. v. Co. of Contra Costa, et al. df10(2):c1-ses.5-6 THE BORD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATE: May 6, 1994 MATTER OF RECORD Attached is the agenda of Friday, May 6 , 1994 , posted as required by the Brown Act. The Clerk of the Board was not required to be present. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN i