San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
Case #0403 San Joaquin General Hospital Reason for Investigation:
⚠️ 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 5 findings
F1
The Grand Jury found that the County Hospital entered into contracts with multiple home health infusion companies, including OCS and OCC.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Grand Jury found that OCS allowed their contract with County Hospital to expire even though they claim to have rights to the San Joaquin County territory.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The Grand Jury found evidence that Option Care Ceres has received substantially more business from County Hospital than Option Care Sacramento and other infusion companies.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Grand Jury found no written County Hospital policy that prohibited the award of business to Option Care Ceres or any other infusion company with which County Hospital had entered into a contract for services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
1. The Grand Jury recommends that the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors direct the County Hospital establish a procurement policy for home health services to reflect the award of services to home health providers in an objective manner consistent with fairness and prudent cost to the county. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Pursuant to Section '933.05 of the Penal Code: The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and San Joaquin General Hospital shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin Superior Court, in writing and of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of the analysis and a time frame not to exceed (6) six months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore.
F5
The Grand Jury found no evidence that a member of the County Board of Supervisors may have used his position to influence Option Care Ceres's selection as a home health care provider through the County Hospital.
No recommendations for this finding