CEO asking for Physician
In the recent article of the Tribune, the CEO is once again asking the Commissioners to appoint two additional board members with one of them being a physician.[The News and Tribune - Floyd Memorial wants more board members]
Because of decisions by Commissioners Freiberger and Reisert, the hospital has been without a Physician on the Board since January. This was the first time in about 12 years. Since January, the hospital has continued to struggle with financial problems, personnel problems and also continued morale problems causing some excellent employees to leave.
You also recall that the Medical Staff, the current Board, and the Medical Society all asked the Commissioners to reconsider their decision earlier this year and place a physician back on the Board. Nothing ever happened because it would have given the appearance the Commissioners made a mistake.
So why is this issue being brought up again and especially by the CEO who was more than happy to not have an outspoken physician on the Board?
It has been suggested that since I have been nominated to the Vice-Chief of Staff position that will be voted on this month, the CEO wants to get another less-vocal physician on the Board to help buffer the truth. If elected to the Vice Chief of Staff position, I would be back in the Board room, not as a voting member, but certainly holding individuals accountable for decisions and policies and providing the Board with a view they rarely hear. It appears the CEO is now concerned and wanting some increased leverage to prevent the Board from hearing the other side of the issues.
I would be willing to bet he has a couple of physicians already in mind for this position and has probably given the current Commissioners the names.
And maybe the Commissioners are also concerned because Reisert will be replaced by either Seabrook or Stumler in the November election and they will have the opportunity to select two new Board members in January to replace outgoing members Darrel Mills and Bob Kleehammer. The entire shift of power on the Board and with the CEO currently hangs in the balance. I think the CEO is getting a little nervous and that is why the issue is being brought back up now. He has rapport with the current Commissioners and it will change dramatically in January.
posted by Anonymous at 5:58 AM
19 Comments:
What a surprise--it is all about YOU, as usual.
anonymous, You are blind. This is all about Hanson. He is concerned about his status and about keeping a majority on the board that are his yes-men.
If he really wanted this to happen before now, he would have been more active earlier in the year. The only reason he is now approaching the commissioners is because he knows things could actually change and he would lose his ultimate power.
It's all about Hanson and you must also be one of his cronies to keep supporting him.
We recently lost another good employee from surgery because of the frustration
Interesting how HB, who has a very negative personal relationship with Bryant Hanson and is unlikely to be his confidant, has such powerful mind-reading skills that he can second guess Hanson’s motives for everything he does. Just a few days ago, HB was complaining that someone who disagreed with one of his positions was attacking him personally (“Ad Hominem”) rather than discussing the merits of his argument. Once again, however, HB shows himself to be the master of Ad Hominem attacks by attributing sinister motives to even a position that he otherwise supports: the appointment of a physician to the hospital board. Frankly, I find his self-serving mudslinging increasingly tiresome.
well I see our anonymous diogenstrainee is back and overtly critical again even though they repeatedly say they have no connections to Floyd.
These comments and thoughts about his motives are not just mine. Many others also find the timing to be extremely questionable in addition to comments he has reportedly made.
He is characterized by this type of behavior and it fits with his modus operandi.
These opiniions give readers an opportunity to critically evaluate all the information since it is so skewed otherwise. They will come to their own conclusions as many already have.
I have read this blog since its inception over a year ago and commented rarely. I have learned a tremendous amount on a multitude of topics and have enjoyed most but have disagreed with some.
I feel obliged to comment today because what I have consistently noticed is the blogger “DiogenesTrainee” always criticizes the doctor every time he posts a comment about the administration or CEO. This is extremely unusual for someone who repeatedly states he/she has no connection to anyone there. This person either has extreme dislike for the doctor or is just lying about their identity.
HB has brought up very valid issues and concerns and certainly has a perspective that few others have. If you don’t like reading the comments; don’t look at the blog. Readers should consider this when making comments as they have in no way walked in his shoes or worked as closely to the CEO as HB has done.
I know many other physicians and employees who privately state what is being said here. Our county officials had better begin taking some responsibility and put a reign on this situation before it is too late.
The CEO is once again "circling his wagons"...wagons full of "yes men" who will never tell the "emperor" he is naked.
I have seen this soooooooooo many times before and in soooooooo many different places.
But hang in there Doc.."the times, they are a changin'."
You apply the same scientific rigor to your complaints about the CEO as you do to your fundamentalist religious beliefs: a lot of opinion and a lot less evidence. A statment like "Many others also find the timing to be extremely questionable" is a good example. Just who are these MANY OTHERS and how many are 'many'?
You play awfully fast and loose with "facts." You keep referring to financial "struggles" at Floyd. Well, how bad is the financial management there when Floyd continues to operate in the black while several other hospitals in this region are in the red? You constantly harp on the impact of government in insurance company reimbursement rates on your own operations, but you seem to expect that those same limitations shouldn't affect hospitals...or at least Floyd Memorial.
gotta agree with roz tate. I've heard it too many times from too many sources for it to be without merit.
The wagons are circling!
Keep it up HB
It is unfair to judge an issue such as this on the basis of one party's ability to communicate their ideas. But in reality, the person who is able to most clearly communicate usually wins an argument in the eyes of the public. I must say that, for a medical doctor, your writing ability is disappointing. The grammatical mistakes, and even worse the simple typographical errors, make your blog difficult to read. Your choice of words is also puzzling and often confusing. Please consider paying more attention to how you write. It will make your arguments much more effective.
This is Anonymous 7:26 again. I have taken the liberty of editing your original post in an effort to strengthen your position. It is below:
In a recent Tribune article, the CEO of Floyd Memorial again proposed that Commissioners appoint two additional Board members, with one being a physician.[The News and Tribune - Floyd Memorial wants more board members]
As a result of decisions made by Commissioners Freiberger and Reisert, the hospital has, for the first time in twelve years, been without a physician on the Board. During that time, the hospital has continued to struggle with financial, personnel, and morale problems, causing some excellent employees to leave.
You may recall that the Medical Staff, the current Board, and the Medical Society all asked the Commissioners to reconsider their decision earlier this year and to once again appoint a physician to serve on the Board. However, no action was taken, likely for fear of creating the appearance that the Commissioners had made a mistake.
So why is this issue being raised again, particularly by the CEO who, until now, has been comfortable with the absence of a physician on the Board?
It has been suggested that since I have been nominated to serve as Vice Chief of Staff, which will be voted on this month, the CEO would like to have a physician on the Board who is less vocal than myself in an effort to help buffer my views. If elected to the Vice Chief of Staff position, I would be back in the Boardroom—not as a voting member, but certainly holding the Board accountable for its decisions and policies. I would also provide the Board with an alternative view that they rarely hear. It appears the CEO is concerned about that possibility, and is looking to insulate the Board from hearing another side to the issues.
It would not be surprising if he already has a couple of physicians in mind for these positions, or if he has given the Commissioners their names.
Perhaps the Commissioners are also concerned about the replacement of Reisert with either Seabrook or Stumler in the November election. The Commissioners will have the opportunity to select two new Board members in January to replace outgoing members Darrel Mills and Bob Kleehammer. The balance of power on the Board will be at stake. The CEO’s rapport with the current Commissioners, which could change in January, has likely prompted him to request additional Board members who may be supportive of his policies before it is too late. As they say, timing is everything.
Many of the employees support HB and his efforts to improve the organization. Thank you Dan. I hope you are successful in your efforts to obtain a leadership position - WE NEED CHANGE!!! Many are "coasting" until their retirement - this is GREATLY hurting the facility. Others are simply lazy. Let the good people who want to move the organization forward have the opportunity to do so!
It's unfortunate that a good nurse manager from surgery is leaving. Other excellent employees may do so as well.
The unwillingness and inability of leadership to do what is right for the patients and associates is obvious. We don't want to make anyone "mad", right?
Employee input and contributions are disregarded and taken advantage of - as a result, employees becomes frustrated, and therefore they leave. Pretty simple to figure out. Pretty easy to solve, but, hey, "we've always done things this way" - right?
HB, I say leadership because while the CEO is ultimately responsible, there are others in leadership who should be held accountable. I think your constructive criticism could be spread out amongst others. Some in administration wouldn't lift a finger to change something in their area, and also treat their employees poorly. This is a terrible combination. Period.
Others in administration truly care about the patients, associates, physicians and continually improving and striving to make things better by moving forward - even if this involves getting into the trenches, interacting with physicians, patients, associates and families - these are the true 'roll up your sleeves' leaders! Take the COO for example, a truly outstanding individual who exemplifies strength and leadership.
Look at other major industries - the airlines for example. Southwest and JetBlue both have "roll up your sleeves" leaders. Outside of the COO, the others in hospital leadership cannot possibly know what is going on with the employees and patients if they seldom step outside of administration and actually INTERACT with those who work hard everyday. A simple thank you or good job goes a long way. It costs nothing, is great recognition for staff, makes them feel valued, and builds loyalty - Imagine that!
It is also beyond comprehension how we could have a hospital board with no physician member - Wake up commissioners! Have you gone to other hospital websites? I haven't found one that does NOT have a physician on their board! Why do you think this is?
Other organizations realize that physicians bring patients, and therefore revenue, to the facility. Their input is crucial to our continued growth, and they should have a voice at the highest level.
While all parties will not agree 100% of the time, we need balanace, collaboration, and consensus between medicine, finance, and business in the organization. The commissioners need to stop the small town politics and look to the future - not only for the hospital and the employees, but for the county as well.
I think the last commenter says it all. Thank you for the very articulate remarks.
I've outlasted 7 top administrators. Just remember Dr. Dan, they will eventually leave and you will still be there!!!! Hang in there.
In response to last poster, my advice for "Dr. Dan" is he needs to apply for the CEO job when it comes open. He can start now by taking some Business courses and Hospital Management courses and then he might be qualified to render opinions about how the present CEO is doing his job. Anyone with any common sense can tell by reading this Blog that it is a personal thing. I am sure that the Dr. would be greatly offended if anyone attacked him and his method of practicing medicine. I would venture to say the CEO of FMH does not waste his time, belittleing any of the Doctors. Granted HB may have worked closely with the CEO of FMH
but it makes me wonder, was he really working with him or against him. Sounds like the latter.
Based on some of the things that have gone on at the hospital lately I think the current CEO should have taked some business courses and hospital management courses himself. Dr. Dan (and most of the other doctor's at FMHHS) could sure do a better job. In fact, I'm not too sure the homeless guy with the sign at 265 and State St. couldn't do a better job than what's being done now.
I had the pleasure of speaking to some of our city and county representatives (and potential representatives) over the past week or two that are hearing more and more about the problems and concerns facing Floyd Memorial. While it's still too early to tell, some of them feel that major changes are needed and are willing to investigate and look into the situation after the November election. They say that the change in board members should prove interesting, hoping that staff will be once again happy and proud to work at the hospital again.
Time will tell and we shall soon see.
Amen, anonymous posting at 4:50PM.
Sorry to say but it seems like "Dr. Dan" had his chance to make a difference while serving on the Board, but apparently he blew it, as he no longer is a member. What does that tell you.
Anonymous 10:22PM - Pay attention. His leaving the board was political. He was a threat to administration because he stood behind the doctors, patients, and staff. By the way, read the newest blog. HE'S BACK!! This time as Vice Chief of Staff.
He might be Vice Chief of Staff but his job is not to run the Hospital. Thats what the present CEO is hired for, I would think "Dr. Dan" needs to spend his time taking care of his patients.
It dosen't take a "Rocket Scientist"
to figure out what he really wants to do and it has nothing to do with employees or problems concerning the hospital. He has already shown what his agenda is.
Post a Comment
<< Home