Bylaws
Hospital Board Bylaws specifically state in Section 1, paragraph 3:
…No substantial part of the activities of the hospital shall be the carrying on of propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the hospital shall not participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office…….
These caused me much concern with 2 specific issues. (1)My belief that the CEO was strong-arming employees in certain levels of the organization (managers, directors etc.) to donate money to Political Action Committees and (2) the hospital financing the legal fees to fight the County’s lawsuit on the moratorium it issued over the new hospital wanting to come in town.
I was in favor of making it a policy that employees were not to be encouraged, coerced or forced to donate their own money to any organization. This did not have enough support with the rest of the Board for a formal policy and so Mr. Hanson was told that the Board would like to see that activity cease. I was informed by an employee that at the very next administrative council meeting, the issue was addressed and Mr. Hanson made a comment to the effect that “it wasn’t mandatory, but you knew what was expected”.
Doesn’t sound to me like Mr. Hanson had any regard for the Board’s consensus.
In addition, reportedly, the CEO has strong-armed employees to contribute to United Way when he was involved with that organization and had made hospital departments participate in fundraising events for the American Heart Association when he was affiliated with that group. Employees were upset because some of them have charitable organizations they are involved with but cannot use hospital time and money for their interests. In my opinion, these things were done so that he would look better at the expense of the hospital employees doing the work. Double standards run amok under this leadership. This has been typical of his style over his tenure. Usually taking credit but never blame or responsibility. From what I see and hear, he is not a respected leader by many of those who work closely with him although most cannot voice their opinions for fear of reprisals.
The second issue regarding the moratorium also caused me concern. I am very much an advocate of the free market and competition. I understand fully how a specialty hospital may potentially harm the financial security of a County-owned hospital. There are ways to create fair and equitable practices for all involved and to continue to allow growth in new business all while increasing the tax base. There was a supposedly non-partisan task force formed to look at this issue, and one of the members just happens to be the newly appointed Board Member to the hospital. I am hopeful but at the same time a little skeptical that the recommendations coming from this committee will be biased.
The hospital has already spent in excess of $100,000 in legal fees for the defense of the moratorium and will likely spend in excess of $250,000 if they appeal the recent ruling overturning the moratorium the County placed. I voted against Hospital money being spent for this endeavor because of the Bylaw language listed above and I did not feel we could or should prevent competition. The hospital needs to learn how to compete and the County needs to ensure fair competition amongst all the players involved.
I continue to find it distasteful for a CEO or organization to coerce employees to donate their personal income to a certain cause.
…No substantial part of the activities of the hospital shall be the carrying on of propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the hospital shall not participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office…….
These caused me much concern with 2 specific issues. (1)My belief that the CEO was strong-arming employees in certain levels of the organization (managers, directors etc.) to donate money to Political Action Committees and (2) the hospital financing the legal fees to fight the County’s lawsuit on the moratorium it issued over the new hospital wanting to come in town.
I was in favor of making it a policy that employees were not to be encouraged, coerced or forced to donate their own money to any organization. This did not have enough support with the rest of the Board for a formal policy and so Mr. Hanson was told that the Board would like to see that activity cease. I was informed by an employee that at the very next administrative council meeting, the issue was addressed and Mr. Hanson made a comment to the effect that “it wasn’t mandatory, but you knew what was expected”.
Doesn’t sound to me like Mr. Hanson had any regard for the Board’s consensus.
In addition, reportedly, the CEO has strong-armed employees to contribute to United Way when he was involved with that organization and had made hospital departments participate in fundraising events for the American Heart Association when he was affiliated with that group. Employees were upset because some of them have charitable organizations they are involved with but cannot use hospital time and money for their interests. In my opinion, these things were done so that he would look better at the expense of the hospital employees doing the work. Double standards run amok under this leadership. This has been typical of his style over his tenure. Usually taking credit but never blame or responsibility. From what I see and hear, he is not a respected leader by many of those who work closely with him although most cannot voice their opinions for fear of reprisals.
The second issue regarding the moratorium also caused me concern. I am very much an advocate of the free market and competition. I understand fully how a specialty hospital may potentially harm the financial security of a County-owned hospital. There are ways to create fair and equitable practices for all involved and to continue to allow growth in new business all while increasing the tax base. There was a supposedly non-partisan task force formed to look at this issue, and one of the members just happens to be the newly appointed Board Member to the hospital. I am hopeful but at the same time a little skeptical that the recommendations coming from this committee will be biased.
The hospital has already spent in excess of $100,000 in legal fees for the defense of the moratorium and will likely spend in excess of $250,000 if they appeal the recent ruling overturning the moratorium the County placed. I voted against Hospital money being spent for this endeavor because of the Bylaw language listed above and I did not feel we could or should prevent competition. The hospital needs to learn how to compete and the County needs to ensure fair competition amongst all the players involved.
I continue to find it distasteful for a CEO or organization to coerce employees to donate their personal income to a certain cause.
posted by Anonymous at 5:14 AM
7 Comments:
I am appalled! What kind of man would work on behalf of United Way and the American Heart Association?
It would be helpful if you would provide the names of all employees who lost jobs, missed promotions, received reduced salary increases or got a “mean face” for failing to support fund drives for either of these organizations.
I understand fully how a specialty hospital may potentially harm the financial security of a County-owned hospital.
But...
I find it difficult to see how advocating against the moratorium is a fulfillment of your (former) fiduciary duty as a board member. I suppose the argument of "we can't win" is an acceptable reason, but are there other reasons that a board member would advocate for a stance that permits a move that would "harm the financial security of a County-owned hospital?"
Dr., could you explain just how an overcapacity of beds, especially of higher-profit beds, might harm the financial security of Floyd Memorial? You know those arguments. Do you credit them?
You might be right in saying the public hospital is inevitably going to have to step aside for the "free" market, but is that stance consistent with the duties of a board member?
You are obviously proud of FCMH and its programs and staff. So why would you be so eager to invite a private, doctor-owned hospital to cherry-pick the profitable patients at the expense of the County-owned hospital?
This query, if made face-to-face, would seem more friendly, I assure you. But you are uniquely positioned to address BOTH sides of this issue. You are an advocate of "competition" and an advocate of FCMH. So I've tried to lay out (simplistically, I admit), what must have been some of the internal arguments and ideological differences that were exposed during those board meetings.
The questions are sincere. I don't want to argue. It's your blog - the floor is yours. Educate us.
I would prefer that a competing hospital not enter Floyd County; but my wishing for that or any other board member wishing for that is not realistic.
When you look at the continued decline in physician salaries, the continued increase in expenses, the increased demands of governing agencies, insurers, etc, and the rising cost of malpractice, you would understand that physicians have to look at alternative ways to maintain their income.
I sincerely believe that if the hospital does not find ways to partner with its physicians, the physicians will begin doing these endeavors on their own for all the reasons listed.
The money spent on the moratorium could have been spent developing new partnerships with physicians, finding legal ways for the county to compete more equitably with other competitors, used to hire more nursing staff for patient care or spent on other services.
But spending this money on attorney fees for delaying competition (and we all pretty much agreed that delaying was the goal) was not, in my opinion, the best way to manage these funds.
Loyalty alone will not sustain the relationship between Physicians and FMHHS when the financial burdens get too great.
We have ob/gyn docs that whose malpractice insurance is over 90,000 dollars and 2/3 of all their deliveries go to just pay this one bill. I personally have worked harder and put more gross charges on the books for the past 3 years and have taken less home each of those years.
The hospital cannot financially support the 65 million dollar expansion without physicians and therefore I believe my fiduciary responsibility is fulfilled by recognizing this paradigm shift that so many others choose to ignore. I am looking 5 years down the road and felt like others were only seeing what was in front of them.
I hope these examples better explain my stance.
HB, to date, that has been your best response, and I thank you for your insight and passion regarding this issue.
The decision of the County Commissioners not to appoint you or a peer on the Board flies in the face of logic and just plain good 'ol common sense.
This outrageous behavior will cause tremendous harm to Floyd. Please, HB, put the heat on the commissioners. You know as well as I do that Floyd is doomed without positive physician relations. There must be a positive conduit between any hospital and physicians.
You are absolutely right in your perspective. The timing of the commissioners decision indicates a total disregard for Floyd Memorial Hospital. From a strategic sense, it almost seems so undermining that the for profit may have something to do with that, not Floyd Memorial. Is that too much of a conspiracy theory? I'm sure the for profit folks are relishing in this, and smell blood in the water. If I were on a planning committee for the for profit, this is exactly what I'd want to see. A large primary care practice taking on the out moded county leaders who are clueless on health care...obviously.
The commissioners should have a spotlight squarely on them regarding this issue. Citizens, put the heat on them if you care about Floyd Memorial. Without sounding meladramatic, there is not much time to accomplish the tasks at hand.
HB, it is my humble opinion that the issue outlined above eclipses the personal issue between you and the CEO. That may be a very sore spot for you now, but the focus should remain on the lousy county leadership.
I know anonymous chatter ires some, however, it allows discussion for now. Sure there will be inappropriate remarks made now and then, but, very few. Think of the democratic process. We make major decisions at every level of government anonymously. My friend, The New Albanian, may disagree. I enjoy his comments and I hope he takes mine and other anonymous folks seriously.
John Reisert, RESIGN now.
There are two separate issues here that have gotten mixed up. First, whether a physician should be on the board and, secondly, whether that physician should be Dr. Dan. A good argument could be made to have a doc on the board and, maybe, that was an oversight by the commissioners. However, the failure to reappoint Dr. Dan may not reflect an unwillingness to appoint a doctor but, rather, the desire to remove someone who was viewed as divisive, and negative. Dr. Dan's personal animosity toward Bryant Hanson may have been seen as getting in the way of the board's work.
The last anonymous first: Your thoughts imply a third question, "why not appoint another doctor?"
As for the topic of anonymity, there obviously are nuances and shadings, as is the case with any other difficult subject. You seem to be exercising it with responsibility, but I'd suggest that there are more abuses than you've acknowledged.
I was excited when Dr. Dan started this blog, because there was potential for discussion on a whole different realm than that with which I'm conversant. Nothing has happened so far to change that initial impression; it's been shown that there are two sides or more to every story, and all in all, I feel I'm being educated.
Respectful anonymity in all that seems tolerable, although my core beliefs are unchanged.
My job on the board was not to be friends with Mr. Hanson. I have always been up front that I did not believe his leadership style was appropriate for the growth of the Hospital in the 21st century.
If you have read other postings, you know I did not seek out this appointment. I am very comfortable not being on the Board. It gives me more time for other activities. Not having any physician is a mistake.
Being divisive was never the intent. Disagreeing is healthy, but it was always viewed as "divisive" and they are not synonymous. Mr. Hanson wants a board that never challenges, and always just agrees. That is not the role of a good Board Member.
Since I know that some in the administration are reading these regularly, we can bet that some of the responses from anonymous may be related. I have always encouraged open and honest discussion and disagreements but just like these responses, some prefer another way.
I accept challenges and criticism.
Post a Comment
<< Home