The Hudson County Freeholders will again take up the thorny issue of medical contracts for its correctional facility at its Feb. 11 caucus, hoping to come to some agreement with the County Executive’s office as to how to move ahead.
One of two contracts for providing medical and billing services to various county institutions, including the jail, expired in late 2002 and has become the subject of a dispute over how to rectify the apparent problems.
Last year, the freeholders put on hold contracts to the Correctional Health Services partly because of confusion in two contracts, one that was supposed to supply medical services to inmates, the other to manage billing for these services.
Freeholder Bill O’Dea noted that the billing contract seemed to have a component that covered the cost of some medical services. "If you’re going to have a contract for billing, why are you charging for medical services as well when you have another contract that covers that?" he asked.
The billing contract has been held up because of these and other unanswered questions, even though the county continues to need these services.
At its last meeting in January, County Administrator Abe Antun asked for the freeholders to extend the existing billing contract until June 2003, when the medical contract expired so that the whole package could be reexamined, including the section for psychological services.
Antun told the freeholders that the county would seek proposals for the contracts either as one package or in various components, allowing numerous vendors to bid on all or part of the package, and the freeholders are to award all the services to one vendor or break up the services to numerous vendors, depending on the bids.
County Executive Tom DeGise said this was a situation he inherited when he took office in November 2002, but one he hoped to resolve.
"We want an extension so we can seek requests for proposals," DeGise said. "It is made up of three different components, medical, psychological, and billing."
DeGise said several freeholders asked if part of the contract might be done "in house," or in other words, by employees of the county.
"This is something we’ve agreed to look at," DeGise said. "We’re making up a Chinese menu of what we might want to do and what we might have to contract out. But under state law, we have to provide these services, and we wanted an extension so that we can reach out for proposals."
O’Dea said the freeholders will have to make certain that whatever contracts come out of this situation, they will not be "groomed to fit" a particular vendor
DeGise disputed suggestions that the contract designed to fit one contractor.
"If we wanted to give this to one contractor, we could have done so," DeGise said. "But in fact, we agreed with the freeholders, and once the matter was brought to my attention, I thought why not open up the process."
O’Dea and several other freeholders have raised concerns about the proposal of the county to award these contracts under the "competitive contracting" provision in state law. This would allow the freeholders to award these contracts up to five years without having to go out for public bid or even to award them to the vendor with the lowest price.
In evaluating the current contract, DeGise said CHS has done a very good job in some areas, but in other areas he seemed not as qualified.
"By breaking it up and dealing with it piecemeal, we may be able to get best for the service," DeGise said. "But this is not something we can do in a week or a month, and since we need to supply those services, we need the contract extension."
Freeholder Bill O’Dea, the leading critic of the contract handling, said the freeholders will have a lot of questions about the process.
"I have asked questions again and again, and have not yet received answers," he said.
O’Dea said the existing contract poses some serious concerns, especially because of the medical component in both. "If one contract is for billing and the other for medical services, why do both contracts have salaries for doctors?" he asked. "What I want to see is all the medical is put together in one contract and all the billing under another, and then to go out to bid on both contracts."
O’Dea said if the freeholders wait to address the issue until the end of June when the second of the two contracts expire, the freeholders may feel pressure to award the contracts to maintain vital services for the jail.
"We may feel boxed in and have no choice," he said.
O’Dea requested a detailed report of the services provided for more than a year, but claims the information provided was basically a sales brochure, and one that was issued to him more than a year ago.
The freeholders, O’Dea said, granted CHS a 30-day extension on the expired contract in January and will continue to extend the contract month by month until, "we see what kind of progress we’re making towards real bids or proposals," he said. "We do not want to see this drag on until June."