Few were satisfied with the overall process, but on Tuesday D.C. lawmakers approved large contracts for three companies to offer health insurance to hundreds of thousands of low-income residents. They also took a first step towards reforming the troubled D.C. Housing Authority, with has come under renewed fire since a federal audit identified a litany of problems with how the city’s stock of public housing is managed.

The day’s marquee event was the planned vote on the three contracts for companies to operate the city’s Medicaid program, which serves some 250,000 residents. After a convoluted and contested procurement process that stretched out over a year, D.C. awarded the five-year contracts, collectively worth $8.8 billion, to MedStar, AmeriHealth, and Amerigroup. But that drew loud protests — and a fierce lobbying campaign — from CareFirst, which currently holds a Medicaid contract but lost its bid to keep it.

Left to parse the complicated situation were the city’s lawmakers, who are charged with approving any contract worth more than $1 million. But it’s a controversial power to have, with some arguing that it opens the D.C. Council to political lobbying over lucrative contracts and others insisting that it injects a measure of accountability and transparency in how the city spends taxpayer funds.

Ahead of the vote, Councilmember Robert White (D-At Large) urged his colleagues to approve the large contracts, arguing that the city’s procurement process (including numerous appeals) had played out and it wasn’t up to lawmakers to second-guess it. “After a procurement and six appeals and nearly unprecedented scrutiny, the administration made these decisions,” he said. “We are not experts on health care or procurement, and that’s why we should not be picking winners or losers.”

But a pair of councilmembers — Brianne Nadeau (D-Ward 1) and Vincent Gray (D-Ward 7) — countered that they were concerned with the past performance of one of the awardees, Amerigroup, and also felt the entire process had been opaque and unfair.

“I regret the council has had to get involved,” said Nadeau. “But given the fact that we have this authority, I think we need to exercise it to ensure our residents are getting the care and coverage they need.”

Councilmember Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2), for her part, tried to split the difference, pushing for the council to take an additional two weeks to gather information and get a better grasp of a procurement process that many admitted they were still trying to fully comprehend. White successfully pushed back, saying that any delay would merely mean more time for CareFirst and the other companies to furiously lobby lawmakers.

The dynamic shifted in favor of approving the contracts when councilmembers were able to question George Schutter, the director of the D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, about the process and how the winners were selected. Schutter insisted that the city had followed the process and legal appeals had sustained it.

The vote in favor of the contracts was 10-2, with Pinto and Nadeau voting against. (Gray, another opponent, was absent.)

Emergency bill to reform D.C. Housing Authority approved

The council also unanimously voted to approve an emergency bill that imposes a first slate of reforms on the D.C. Housing Authority in the wake of a scathing audit that found dozens of deficiencies — including problems with tracking, repairing, or even filling vacant public housing units across the city.

The bill from D.C. Councilmember Elissa Silverman (I-At Large) and Attorney General Karl Racine imposes new training requirements for the authority’s 13-member board as well as the executive director; requires that the authority regularly report how it’s using D.C. funds for rental assistance as well as repairs to housing units; and clarifies that the authority is subject to the same consumer protection law that applies to private landlords.

“We need to address this with urgency,” said Silverman about the situation at the D.C. Housing Authority, adding that the emergency measure was a precursor to a longer bill she plans to introduce later this month to impose more sweeping changes at the agency, which is independent from the D.C. government and largely federally funded.

The bill drew opposition from Brenda Donald, the director of the authority, who wrote lawmakers on Tuesday to say they were moving too quickly and without all the necessary information on what she was doing to address the audit’s findings. “Without even discussing the over-reach of this legislation given the normal oversight of an independent agency, this reactive and overly burdensome emergency legislation assumes that all findings from the HUD report are accurate and final,” she wrote in an email.

Donald’s argument fell on deaf ears, though, with every councilmember weighing in to support the bill, calling conditions in public housing “inhumane” and saying that the authority’s failings represented a “de facto dismemberment” of public housing as the city faces a shortage of affordable housing. “We have had a crisis on our hands. We’ve all known it, and now it’s time to act,” said Councilmember Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4).

More action in response to the audit is expected soon. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (D-Ward 5) said he would call a public hearing with the city’s chief financial officer on what it would take to get the city’s stock of public housing into better shape. “We must lay the groundwork for DCHA to reach a state of good repair and vastly improve occupancy,” he said, citing a finding from the audit that said a quarter of the 8,000 public housing units in the city are currently vacant.

Previously

After Fierce Lobbying, D.C. Council To Choose Health Insurer For Low-Income Residents

As Fallout Over D.C. Housing Authority Audit Continues, New Bill Would Impose Quick Reforms

Scathing Federal Audit Of D.C. Housing Authority Spurs Calls For Reform At Troubled Agency