Council decided to turn away from a 23 year relationship with Psychological Resources and Associates (PRA), a local EAP (Employee Assistance Program) provider of short-term psychological services in favor of the national provider Cigna Behavioral Health.
As we've discussed previously, there were a few reasons why the staff recommended the switch. One was to reduce the number of visits from 8 per year to 6 per year on any one issue. The second was a savings of around $24,000.
However, at this meeting, the third time this item has been on the agenda and the second time the item has been heard, a new issue came up. Melissa Chaney, Human Resources Administrator for the City of Davis, cited a 1975 law, the Knox-Keene act, that requires all California EAP providers to be licensed. She claimed that PRA was not licensed. If a provider is not licensed under Knox-Keene, they cannot provide more than three counseling visits per six months, according to Chaney.
This was a 1975 law that original applied to HMOs, but began to be applied to EAPs in the late 1980s.
So the city of Davis apparently just became aware of this law.
When asked by Mayor Greenwald, Chaney said, "we didn't realize that this provision was even in effect, that this license was mandated until we went through the RFP process."
Greenwald continued to press, "and you didn't discuss this with the 23 year local provider?"
Chaney responded, "No. During the RFP process we just followed the process of going through the RFP."
Despite City Manager Bill Emlen insisting that we might need more information on the Knox-Keene act, it was clear that both Greenwald and Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson positions were swayed by this particular issue--the lack of license for PRA. Asmundson stated a preference to give the process more time given the length of the relationship and the fact that PRA was a local provider. However, the concerns about Knox-Keene licensing finally swayed her to support Cigna. Greenwald remained ambivalent about it, in the end voting for both the "take no action" substitute motion made by Councilmember Lamar Heystek (to allow for further fact finding) and then finally approving of Cigna. Heystek was the only dissenter in the end.
Councilmember Don Saylor:
Furthermore, it seems rather surprising to a number of people I talked to about this subject after the meeting, that the staff never asked the local provider who the city had a 23 year relationship with about their alleged lack of certification. To this layman who is not a staff member or on council, that would seem the next obvious step. It seems that the staff was very quick to end a long time relationship over what really amounts to a small amount of savings in the scope of the city yearly budget.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
As we've discussed previously, there were a few reasons why the staff recommended the switch. One was to reduce the number of visits from 8 per year to 6 per year on any one issue. The second was a savings of around $24,000.
However, at this meeting, the third time this item has been on the agenda and the second time the item has been heard, a new issue came up. Melissa Chaney, Human Resources Administrator for the City of Davis, cited a 1975 law, the Knox-Keene act, that requires all California EAP providers to be licensed. She claimed that PRA was not licensed. If a provider is not licensed under Knox-Keene, they cannot provide more than three counseling visits per six months, according to Chaney.
This was a 1975 law that original applied to HMOs, but began to be applied to EAPs in the late 1980s.
So the city of Davis apparently just became aware of this law.
When asked by Mayor Greenwald, Chaney said, "we didn't realize that this provision was even in effect, that this license was mandated until we went through the RFP process."
Greenwald continued to press, "and you didn't discuss this with the 23 year local provider?"
Chaney responded, "No. During the RFP process we just followed the process of going through the RFP."
Despite City Manager Bill Emlen insisting that we might need more information on the Knox-Keene act, it was clear that both Greenwald and Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson positions were swayed by this particular issue--the lack of license for PRA. Asmundson stated a preference to give the process more time given the length of the relationship and the fact that PRA was a local provider. However, the concerns about Knox-Keene licensing finally swayed her to support Cigna. Greenwald remained ambivalent about it, in the end voting for both the "take no action" substitute motion made by Councilmember Lamar Heystek (to allow for further fact finding) and then finally approving of Cigna. Heystek was the only dissenter in the end.
Councilmember Don Saylor:
"I find this highly unusual. We've had a reasonable process of RFP. We've had several providers have responded... The current provider had every opportunity to participate in the process. He wasn't even in the top three in terms of the price and performance. We have relied on our... human resources director to provide us with a significant amount of information. And over the past month, we've asked them to go back and review this... I have no idea of why we are considering going back to a provider that we've now heard does not have the proper certification for the service..."What I think Councilmember Saylor fails to consider is the concern over the termination of a long term relationship with a local provider and the price that was bid by Cigna as well as whether or not PRA is certified to provide this service. In the original staff report and at the prior two city council meetings in which this issue was discussed no mention was made of the certification issue. In fact it was not an issue. Regarding costs, it appears, and we did the math on Tuesday, that Cigna would lose a small amount of money in their bid if the same number of people requested the same amount of service as they did last year. That was never explained by staff or the council, how the math added up.
Furthermore, it seems rather surprising to a number of people I talked to about this subject after the meeting, that the staff never asked the local provider who the city had a 23 year relationship with about their alleged lack of certification. To this layman who is not a staff member or on council, that would seem the next obvious step. It seems that the staff was very quick to end a long time relationship over what really amounts to a small amount of savings in the scope of the city yearly budget.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
