Comments can be
sent to
PVPHComments@co.washington.ny.us
or mailed to Health Care Comments, Washington County Board of
Supervisors
383 Broadway Bldg. B
Fort Edward, NY 12828.
County
Attorney Roger Wickes is the information officer for this process.
He can be reached via the contact information above or at 746-2216. |
 |
The County-owned Pleasant Valley, including: a 122-bed Skilled
Nursing Facility, a 33-bed Adult Home, and a 24-slot Adult Day
Health Care Program; and/or
Three County-owned Public Health Home Care Services, including: a
Certified Home Health Agency, a Long Term Home Health Care Program,
and a Hospice program.
Statement of the Board of Supervisors
In light of the recent solicitation of Requests for Proposals
(RFP’s) concerning future operations of Pleasant Valley and
Washington County Public Health programs, the Board of Supervisors wishes to provide the public with the most current and accurate
information possible to make the process transparent for the public,
residents/patients and employees of the programs and facility. We
know considerable speculation and rumors are circulating about what
the Board intends to do and we want you to be as informed as
possible, both now and as events occur over the coming months. No
decisions have been made at this time regarding the future of these programs. The County is about to embark on a process to examine the
range of options available regarding these operations and programs.
First, we want to assure the public that the
County is committed to assuring that both Public Health services and
Pleasant Valley nursing home services continue to be provided to
County residents. What is not known at this time is whether those
services will continue to be owned and provided by the County or
under different ownership or structures. Again, absolutely no decisions have been made by anyone regarding whether or not to sell
either Pleasant Valley or the home care programs.
The County is currently testing the waters to see
what degree of interest there may be among potential buyers and/or
operators and as of July 15, various entities have submitted
proposals expressing interest in Pleasant Valley and/or the home
care programs. The County has made it clear that it reserves the
right to reject all potential offers, to determine that none of the
proposals are in the County’s best interest and that it may choose
to continue to operate Pleasant Valley and/or the home care programs
as County-owned entities. The tentative timeline, which is attached,
calls for an initial review period of several months. Initial
interviews with those proposers the County finds promising are
anticipated to be conducted this fall. If the County chooses to
enter into further discussions with one or more of the responding
entities, the process will be long and involved. A final deal may or
may not resemble the initial proposals submitted or even be reached
and the County may choose to end the process at any point along the
way. One principal is clear however, the County is committed to make
a decision that is in the best interests of its citizens,
residents/patients and employees.
Even if a decision is made to change the current
operations for either or both entities, there would be a lengthy
review by New York State that would likely take 12 to 18 months.
Thus, even if a decision was made to change one or both operations,
they would remain under County ownership for at least that time
period after a decision is made.
The County is
committed to keeping the public informed of the status of the review
process and opportunities will be provided for public comment to the
Board of Supervisors on the process and specific proposals at
appropriate times. The Health Committee meeting schedule and the
proposals will be posted on the County’s website
www.co.washington.ny.us. Comments can be sent to
PVPHComments@co.washington.ny.us
or mailed to Health Care Comments, Washington County Board of
Supervisors 383 Broadway Bldg. B Fort Edward, NY 12828. County
Attorney Roger Wickes is the information officer for this process.
He can be reached via the contact information above or at 746-2216.
Top
Evaluation Criteria
The Board of Supervisors was asked to rate each of these items on a
scale of one to five (one
being the least important and five being the most important). The
County’s consultant will
compile the results for release.
1. Proposed sale price and viable and logical terms of purchase.
2. Evidence of sufficient “deep
pockets”/financial capability to purchase Pleasant Valley and/or the
home care services, and maintain them in the future.
3. Whether the potential buyer offers
to buy both PV and the home care services, or only one or the other;
in other words, does it matter if you wind up with possibly two
owners versus only one owner if both are sold.
4. The experience of the proposer in
operating similar nursing homes and/or home care services; this
would include the length of time the operator has been in this
business and the number of facilities/programs currently owned or
operated.
5. A demonstrated history of offering
excellent, high quality Skilled Nursing Facility and/or home care
services (including evidence of recent survey results for SNFs owned
or operated by the proposer).
6. Private for-profit versus
not-for-profit status.
7. Local/regional location and
experience.
8. Experience beyond local level,
with network of statewide or national operations.
9. Responsiveness to the objectives
and expectations outlined in the RFP.
10. The quality, feasibility and
appropriateness of the transition plan from current operations to
operations under the new owner.
11. The proposer’s proposed plan for
continuation of services for current residents of Pleasant Valley
and/or clients of the home care services.
12. Proposed admission/acceptance
policies under the new ownership, including coverage of residents in
all areas of Washington County.
13. The proposed plan for retention,
if any, of current employees of Pleasant Valley and/or home care
services, and evidence of previous experience with current employees
in any previous purchases.
14. Proposed plan for addressing
future salary and benefits of current employees, and evidence of
previous experience with current employees in any previous
purchases.
15. The value, feasibility and
appropriateness of any changes an applicant may be proposing to
current practices or configuration of services or facilities.
16. Quality of references.
17. Long-term commitment to providing
services in the future.
18. Experience working with Unions,
and proposed approach to working with issues raised by unions
representing Pleasant Valley and home care employees.
19. How applicant proposes to work
with and be accountable to the larger community.
Top
Timeline
All responses to the RFP are due July 15. Upon receipt of all
proposals, CGR will follow-up to the extent necessary on the
Committee’s behalf on any incomplete responses, and/or to clarify any issues needing elaboration or clarification, as part of the
review process.
By no later than the 10th of August, CGR will produce for the Health
Committee’s review a
summary narrative report indicating pros, cons and other
implications of each proposal.
As early in August as possible (no later than during the second or
third week in August), the Health Committee and/or other Supervisors
meet to review the proposals and CGR’s summary report and identify
proposals worth further consideration, plus any follow-up questions
and issues that need to be pursued with each potential purchaser
that passes the initial Committee review hurdle, and remains of
interest to the Committee into a second round of the process.
During the latter part of August, CGR summarizes the responses to
the follow-up questions and
issues and provides the summary in a second report to the Health
Committee for its review.
In late August or early September, the Health Committee meets for a
second time to review the
updated information from the “second round” applicants leading to a
Committee decision as to
which “finalists” if any, it wishes to interview and perhaps visit.
During the first half of September, CGR would coordinate on the
Committee’s behalf in-person
interviews with any finalist candidates. Field visits may also be
scheduled during this time.
During October, final discussions of the Health Committee and Board
concerning making final
decisions about which proposals, if any, to accept to enter into the
process of final negotiations take place along with identification
of key issues that would need to be addressed in any final
negotiations with the prospective purchaser(s).
October or early November a final decision about whether or not to
sell, and if so with whom to
continue negotiations, is made.
Negotiations
continue until a deal is reached or is unable to be reached.
12 to 18 months after an agreement is reached, Certificate of Need
is granted and operations
transition.
Top
Notes on Redaction of
Proposals
1. Each proposer was requested to provide information under separate
cover that they considered to be trade secrets. That material is not
included in the redacted proposals.
2. Audited financials were requested
for each proposer. That information was redacted from
each response.
3. Email addresses were redacted in
order to avoid “harvesting” from the internet.
4. Personal addresses were redacted.
5. The initial offering prices were
redacted due to the fact that one proposer did not make a
specific price offer in order to avoid unfair advantage to one or
more responder.
Top
|
