Grand Traverse County commissioners pumped the brakes Wednesday on a proposed agreement to have Comfort Keepers take over management of the county’s Commission on Aging (COA), citing concerns ranging from the potential impact on clients to the lack of a bidding process to the need for further board discussion.

County administrators are proposing hiring Comfort Keepers to oversee operations at COA, the county department providing in-home services to residents age 60 and older. An ongoing audit of the department has revealed COA is not in compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) standards, according to administrators. Their proposal aims to leverage Comfort Keeper’s more modern technology and senior care resources to bring COA into HIPAA compliance, provide professional training to COA staff, and extend client services. “(It would) capitalize upon the expertise and professional resources of a national company,” according to County Deputy Administrator Jennifer DeHaan.

While commissioners were first briefed on the proposal in a December 21 memo, full details of the contract were not available until the release of Wednesday’s board meeting packet. The full proposal outlines management fees totaling more than $27,000 per month to Comfort Keepers, an annual contract valued at over $327,000. According to the agreement, all future employee hires – with the exception of a new COA director – would become employees of Comfort Keepers. While administrators told commissioners the partnership wouldn’t outsource existing county jobs – “we’re not looking to change the status of county employees or their benefits or compensation,” DeHaan said – the proposal specifies only that county field employees will be retained.

When asked by The Ticker if the partnership could result in the elimination of COA office or administrative staff, DeHaan said it would be “premature to make any conclusions regarding that.” DeHaan said her department was still evaluating “the administrative workload and efficiencies that would be developing” under an agreement with Comfort Keepers.

Commissioners Wednesday balked at approving the overhaul of COA without further study. “The idea that we’re going to (approve) a contract to the tune of $327,000 a year without a formal RFP process, without us reviewing the (program) requirements, without us reviewing bids is totally beyond me,” said Commissioner Sonny Wheelock. “If I’m spending (close to) $330,000 a year, I want a really detailed explanation of exactly what I’m going to get for it, and that’s certainly not in that packet.”

Commissioner Cheryl Gore Follette said she wanted to better understand “all the ramifications” of outsourcing COA management before voting on the proposal. “I think that our senior citizens are such an important part of our community that this deserves our time and our energy to fully discuss this whole issue,” Gore Follete said. “I don’t believe we have a HIPAA emergency, which is how this is being presented to us.”

County Deputy Civil Counsel Christopher Forsyth affirmed commissioners did not need to take immediate action on the proposal. “It is important for us to comply with HIPAA…certainly we should be working toward having the COA being HIPAA-compliant,” Forsyth said. “Is there an immediate threat or exposure of liability? No, I don’t see that.”

One COA field employee took to the microphone during public comment, pleading with commissioners to reconsider the proposal and asking why COA millage funding – which commissioners recently voted to return in part to taxpayers – wasn’t instead invested in upgrading COA technology and bringing the department into compliance under its own management. “We have done a fantastic job for all these years – 41 years COA has been here,” she said. “Please don’t just take that and give it to someone else.”

Commissioners voted to schedule a dedicated study session for reviewing the COA proposal on February 8. “I think we want far more information than we have been provided yet,” Chair Carol Crawford told administrators. County Administrator Tom Menzel readily agreed to the meeting, noting staff had been reviewing COA closely for months and that the proposed agreement was crafted with the best interests of both clients and the county in mind.

“I think we’ve made a compelling case…and we’re not concerned about having an in-depth discussion on the rationale and why we did it,” Menzel told commissioners. “If you’re not comfortable, then I wouldn’t have any concerns about having another discussion to get you to the point you’re comfortable.”