⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F18-27
The relationship between Alameda Health System and OakCare Medical Group has been characterized, in the past, as contentious and lacking in transparency. In large measure, this is a function of the outsized role that OakCare plays in the medical leadership and medical staff at Alameda Health System. While the contract and management processes have improved under the current contract, the ability to build a sustainable health system to serve the county is hampered by lack of alignment between the medical leadership and staff and the strategic directions of Alameda Health System. Policies and procedures related to the use of public resources by
No recommendations for this finding
F18-28
management and leadership OakCare have been inadequately developed and followed. This includes use of public space, public equipment, and direct public budgetary expenditures for activity that supports the private medical group.
No recommendations for this finding
F18-29
Policies and procedures related to the acquisition and management of contracts and grants received from federal and state agencies and private foundations by affiliated physicians who are members of OakCare Medical Group have been inadequately developed and followed.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The complaint brought to the Grand Jury the issue of the appropriateness of the contracts and the adequacy of oversight by AHS of its financial relationships through contract with medical groups and individual physicians. The Grand Jury focused its investigation on the largest of these contracts, the one with the OakCare Medical Group. For the contract ending in 2016, the Grand Jury concluded that the contract was inadequate as to its specifications of performance standards, compensation, oversight, remedies, and evaluation elements. Moreover, it found that the nature of the relationship between AHS and OakCare was not characterized by open communication, responsiveness, or collaboration, all of which would be necessary to ensure the best level of patient care and the judicious use of resources. There is evidence that OakCare did not operate in a manner that ensured full compliance with the clinical service obligations set forth in the contract. The Grand Jury found evidence that many of these issues have been partially addressed in the current contract; however, some of the concerns regarding lack of transparency and alignment remain. The Grand Jury concludes that the major contributor to this flawed dynamic is the outsized power that OakCare has in its relationship with AHS. OakCare provides the majority of physician services and virtually all of the physician leadership at AHS's Highland Hospital. The Grand Jury also found evidence that contracts and grants were received by AHS for individuals who were members of OakCare, and that policies and practices for proper oversight and management of these grants were not in place or not followed in order to ensure proper 2017-2018 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report operation. Similarly, the Grand Jury found evidence that a proper understanding of the organizational boundary between AHS and OakCare is not well understood throughout AHS, nor is there a proper set of policies and practices in place and followed for ensuring that public resources are not used to benefit OakCare.
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Alameda Health System
Special District