As part of that probe, lawyers from the firm Bird & Marella noted they lacked subpoena power or the ability to interview staff under oath.\u00a0<\/p>\n
They also weren\u2019t able to find records of several closed door discussions, forcing them to rely on eyewitness accounts from two to three years ago.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Lawyers noted there were various points where CalOptima staff ignored policies around disclosing closed door conversations to the public and failed to properly handle a multi-million dollar property sale.\u00a0<\/p>\n
What Did the Auditors Investigate?\u00a0<\/p>\n
In an eight-page summary released last week, auditors from Ankura noted that most of the documents they requested never came through, and that they didn\u2019t interview anybody who worked for the agency as part of their review.\u00a0<\/p>\n
It\u2019s unclear how much CalOptima spent on this audit and the previous one.<\/p>\n
When asked about costs, staff noted the effort cost $280,000 for the \u201cCalOptima Health Expenditure Review Summary,\u201d but it\u2019s unclear if that covered both or only one audit.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
They did not review any contracts that \u201cwould require an extensive review by CalOptima staff to determine whether the vendor met certain specifications.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
That included contracts surrounding pharmacy benefit managers, medical review organizations, health delegates, healthcare advisory or real estate consultants, software vendors or contracts with outside lawyers.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Auditors did not speak to staff, according to the unsigned statement.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cAnkura was asked to focus on reviewing the materials rather than conducting specific interviews with CalOptima Health employees related to those expenditures,\u201d staff wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Auditors also did not look at any investigations that didn\u2019t involve spending, including HR matters or discussions of the agency\u2019s financial statements or strategic plans.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Instead, auditors focused their investigation on money sent to any \u201cfederal and state legislative advocacy as well as communication firms,\u201d along with grants to nonprofits and funds for \u201ccommunity events and activities,\u201d along with a review of some of Do\u2019s emails to staff.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But once they started requesting records around those contracts, they weren\u2019t able to get everything they wanted.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe availability of requested documentation to us varied across the types of expenditures and specific programs,\u201d auditors wrote. \u201cIn many instances, requested documentation was not provided to us due, in part, to staff turnover or lack of comprehensive record keeping, particularly for earlier parts of the period of interest.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe scope of our engagement did not include interviews with CalOptima staff, board members, or third parties.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0A4A9894.jpg\")
Cal Optima board chair and county supervisor Vicente Sarmiento during a 2025 board meeting. <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0A4A0135.jpg\")
County supervisor and Cal Optima board member Doug Chaffee, in 2025, when the review was launched. Credit: JULIE LEOPO. Voice of OC<\/p>\n