Lack of integrity with Commissioners
The County Commissioners met on Tuesday January 3, 2006 and made the reappointments to the Floyd Memorial Hospital Board. They chose to re-appoint Kay Garry and remove Dr. Daniel Eichenberger. They replaced his position with Keith Megraw who is a personal friend of the CEO Bryant Hanson. The vote was 2-1 against Dr. Eichenberger with Steve Bush voting in favor of Dr. Eichenberger and Chuck Freiberger and John Reisert in opposition.
Why does this matter? There are many reasons that will be discussed.
The success or failure of any hospital is directly related to the physician involvement and their referral patterns.
Keeping abreast of problems and addressing them appropriately is key to maintaining good relations.
Without a physician intricately involved on the Board, the board members will only here the information presented by the CEO and with his spin on the situation. This is always biased.
CEO’s from the previous generation were trained during a time when physicians and hospital CEO’s were more adversarial and not accustomed to working together. But with the current healthcare environment, there has to be paradigm shift in order to succeed. The CEO at Floyd is from the “old school of thought” and he has a history of having difficult physician relations.
The Board had just hired a consultant to review and work on transition planning and really needed a consistency in the Board makeup. Dr. Eichenberger had the most knowledge of the current situation as well as being the impetus for the changes being made.
There are many other issues involved, but politics once again intervened and egos were challenged and therefore changes were made that were not in the best interest of Floyd Memorial or the community.
Why did this happen?
The reason is simple. Two county commissioners placed politics and egos over their duty to the Hospital and the community.
One year ago, the seven Board members were going to choose a new chairman because they believed a new direction was needed. It was felt that there was not enough accountability and the CEO had far too much freedom in his decisions. Four of the board members would have selected Dr. Eichenberger and would have had the majority needed. A few days prior to the vote, there was pressure placed on one of the four members by County Commissioner Chuck Freiberger and John Reisert. They, in so many words, told this member that if he wanted his political aspirations of becoming sheriff to be a reality, he should not vote for Dr. Eichenberger.
After discussions between these four members, they decided to choose Von Marshall as Chairman. This allowed a change in leadership without placing the one member in a political problem.
Dr. Eichenberger personally called both Chuck Freiberger and John Reisert and confronted them about the interference in the board’s plans. He informed them that if they didn’t allow the majority to do what was in the best interest of the hospital, he would resign his position and go public about the interference and all the problems within the hospital, the finances, administration etc. It would not have looked good politically for either of them if the only physician would have resigned and made public this information.
Chuck Freiberger had his ego threatened when held accountable for his actions, and not re-appointing Dr. Eichenberger is the retaliation. Other Board members sent letters to the county commissioners asking them to re-appoint Dr. Eichenberger, but they chose not to follow the advice of those who knew what was in the Hospital’s best interest.
Bryant Hanson (CEO) during this time had also been meeting privately behind the scenes to encourage the replacement of Dr. Eichenberger because his decisions were being challenged and he was being held accountable for the ongoing hospital problems.
Even the Board’s attorney has stated it will be tough without a physician on the Board.
Integrity is important and two of three of our County Commissioners have shown their lack thereof.
Some have questioned the identity of the Healthblogger, but it has not been made public because of the potential reappointments and his candid discussion on the issues involved. Since the appointments have now been completed, I am comfortable stating that Healthblogger and Daniel Eichenberger M.D. are one in the same.
It is disappointing that holding people accountable for their decisions is not politically correct. Progress in Floyd County has taken another step backwards. I will continue to share information that is relevant to the taxpayers of the County-owned hospital and show the partisanship and politics that some of our local leaders continue to display at our expense.
Why does this matter? There are many reasons that will be discussed.
The success or failure of any hospital is directly related to the physician involvement and their referral patterns.
Keeping abreast of problems and addressing them appropriately is key to maintaining good relations.
Without a physician intricately involved on the Board, the board members will only here the information presented by the CEO and with his spin on the situation. This is always biased.
CEO’s from the previous generation were trained during a time when physicians and hospital CEO’s were more adversarial and not accustomed to working together. But with the current healthcare environment, there has to be paradigm shift in order to succeed. The CEO at Floyd is from the “old school of thought” and he has a history of having difficult physician relations.
The Board had just hired a consultant to review and work on transition planning and really needed a consistency in the Board makeup. Dr. Eichenberger had the most knowledge of the current situation as well as being the impetus for the changes being made.
There are many other issues involved, but politics once again intervened and egos were challenged and therefore changes were made that were not in the best interest of Floyd Memorial or the community.
Why did this happen?
The reason is simple. Two county commissioners placed politics and egos over their duty to the Hospital and the community.
One year ago, the seven Board members were going to choose a new chairman because they believed a new direction was needed. It was felt that there was not enough accountability and the CEO had far too much freedom in his decisions. Four of the board members would have selected Dr. Eichenberger and would have had the majority needed. A few days prior to the vote, there was pressure placed on one of the four members by County Commissioner Chuck Freiberger and John Reisert. They, in so many words, told this member that if he wanted his political aspirations of becoming sheriff to be a reality, he should not vote for Dr. Eichenberger.
After discussions between these four members, they decided to choose Von Marshall as Chairman. This allowed a change in leadership without placing the one member in a political problem.
Dr. Eichenberger personally called both Chuck Freiberger and John Reisert and confronted them about the interference in the board’s plans. He informed them that if they didn’t allow the majority to do what was in the best interest of the hospital, he would resign his position and go public about the interference and all the problems within the hospital, the finances, administration etc. It would not have looked good politically for either of them if the only physician would have resigned and made public this information.
Chuck Freiberger had his ego threatened when held accountable for his actions, and not re-appointing Dr. Eichenberger is the retaliation. Other Board members sent letters to the county commissioners asking them to re-appoint Dr. Eichenberger, but they chose not to follow the advice of those who knew what was in the Hospital’s best interest.
Bryant Hanson (CEO) during this time had also been meeting privately behind the scenes to encourage the replacement of Dr. Eichenberger because his decisions were being challenged and he was being held accountable for the ongoing hospital problems.
Even the Board’s attorney has stated it will be tough without a physician on the Board.
Integrity is important and two of three of our County Commissioners have shown their lack thereof.
Some have questioned the identity of the Healthblogger, but it has not been made public because of the potential reappointments and his candid discussion on the issues involved. Since the appointments have now been completed, I am comfortable stating that Healthblogger and Daniel Eichenberger M.D. are one in the same.
It is disappointing that holding people accountable for their decisions is not politically correct. Progress in Floyd County has taken another step backwards. I will continue to share information that is relevant to the taxpayers of the County-owned hospital and show the partisanship and politics that some of our local leaders continue to display at our expense.
posted by Anonymous at 5:49 AM
9 Comments:
My use of words is often poor but I am usually never at a loss for them--untill now. hhhhhmmmmmmmmmm
I posted your article at NAC, imagining that might help increase readership today.
Glad you're out of the, uh, closet, HB.
And the hyopcrite of the year award goes to...
Over the next several days, you will get a more detailed view of what has actually occured.
Not sure what the hypocrisy refers to other than the identity. I have been very open and honest about viewppoints on all topics and many bloggers already knew the identity.
Are you not the guy who just recently wrote that he withheld his indentity as part of a strategy to better his chances of a political appointment?
Are you not the guy who, under the guise of a concerned, innnocent medical professional trying to help me, anonymously referred me to your own office for a better patient experience?
Are you not the guy who argued extensively that doctors have a right to attain uncommon levels of wealth, even at the expense of low income patients, while not bothering to mention that you're a doctor?
Can you explain how any of those obvious conflicts of interest constitute the integrity you now question in others?
I did not know your identity. It was obvious that you were involved in the medical field and I only assumed that you were a MD, pobably retired or semi-retired.
I echo Bluegill's comments, at least the ones that I have knowledge of.
We don't know each other. Someone close to me does know you or at least remembers you. I confirmed that by email this morning. I asked if they knew or remembered a Dr.xxxxxxxxxx, that I had just saw something about him not being reappointed to the board. The answer was "yeah, he is a really nice guy." I think that I will keep what I know and feel to myself. This person would be really disappointed.
Bluegill,
Without arguing and certainly not wanting to invalidate your feelings the repsonses are as follows.
The identity was withheld until now only to be judged on what my service has been as a Board Member and not be influenced otherwise.
I am a concerned medical professional and did refer you to this office. We have 5 physicians and getting a sixth. Our reputation is excellent and I still believe you would find a much better and different experience if you were to choose. The offer still stands.
I have argued and still would argue that physicians should be able to earn their salary without undue interference. This profession is highly regulated by federal and state government,insurance agencies and others, much more so than most. I am not sure what you consider uncommon levels of wealth. There are many professions and busienss owners that make much more than the average family physician or pediatrician. Certain highly specialized medical specialists do make a lot of money, but this is not the average family physician. The CEO of the hospital as well as many in administration make as much or more than the local family physicians.
I am sorry you feel this way but if you continue to follow, you will see some of the ongoing conflicts that I have strived to overcome and always having to fight against a "status quo mentality."
I brief round of full disclosure of my own: I've known HB for a long time, and he's been my GP since 1998.
Simply stated, his decision to go public relieves me of a few qualms, but then again, it's not about me.
It's my view that Dan has interesting things to say when it comes to health care and the hospital, although it wouldn't be possible for us to disagree more strongly on other issues.
None of this changes things for me, but then again, perhaps it would be difficult for me to be impartial when it comes to a friend.
Thank you for your article. We all need to hear ALL sides.
Post a Comment
<< Home