|
Comment on this article |
Email this Feature
|
|
Provena Covenant Needs Another CEO |
Current rating: 0 |
by Dr. John Hilty
Email: jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified!) |
07 Nov 2002
|
|
In a guest commentary of the News-Gazette that was published on Sept. 29, 2002, and entitled "Health Care Community Needs a Better Watchdog," Diane Friedman, the CEO of Provena Covenant Medical Center in Urbana, attacks Champaign County Health Care Consumers (CCHCC) as a biased group with a grudge against her organization and Provena Health. This article examines Ms. Friedman's allegations and finds that many of them are false. |
On Sept. 29 (Sun.), 2002, The News-Gazette published a guest commentary by Diane Friedman, entitled "Health Care Community Needs a Better Watchdog." In this editorial, Ms. Friedman, who is CEO of Provena Covenant Medical Center in Urbana, Illinois, attacks Champaign County Health Care Consumers (CCHCC) as a biased group with a grudge against her organization and Provena Health (the parent organization of Provena Covenant). This article is a response to some of Ms. Friedman's allegations, which I believe are inaccurate or misleading. I have been a volunteer at CCHCC for a number of years, and have been following the issues that are related to the management of Provena Covenant; I have attended many of the town meetings that have been organized by CCHCC. The Medicare 100/100+ programs (referred to below) were the result of an agreement between CCHCC and Burnham City Hospital to waive the costs of health care to low-income senior citizens who receive Medicare, but do not qualify for Medicaid (e.g., because they live in their own homes). As a condition of earlier hospital mergers, Provena Covenant Medical Center accepted the responsibility to continue the Medicare 100/100+ programs, but abruptly terminated them after only a few months. This was quite likely the decision of Diane Friedman. Below, I examine some of Ms. Friedman's allegations against CCHCC and reveal their shortcomings.
1) Ms. Friedman accuses CCHCC of attacking the local hospital, its physicians, staff, and volunteers. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. What CCHCC is questioning are the decisions made by top management, such as the termination of the Medicare 100/100+ programs and the capital flow from non-profit to for-profit operations within Provena Health. More recently, several nurses from Provena Covenant have criticized the cutbacks in staffing levels that have been initiated by management. In other words, not only CCHCC, but Provena Covenant's own staff are questioning the decisions made by management. CCHCC has merely provided a public forum in which these fired nurses and their colleagues can express their views. Ms. Friedman was also invited to attend these meetings, but refused to become involved in a democratic debate.
2) From the title of her article and commentary, it appears that Ms. Friedman presumes to be speaking on behalf of the entire "Health Care Community" against CCHCC. In reality, she is expressing her own opinions about CCHCC, and possibly other members of top management. I am quite confident that members of the health care community can express their views without Ms. Friedman's assistance. Furthermore, many members of CCHCC belong to the health care community, including Provena Covenant Medical Center.
3) In her guest commentary, CCHCC is incorrectly referred to as "a group." In fact, CCHCC represents a large segment of the local community. During the past 10 years, over 15,000 people, primarily from Champaign County, have been involved in the activities of CCHCC, or they have contributed money to this organization. In instigating a blanket attack on CCHCC, Ms. Friedman is also attacking many members of the community who agree with CCHCC on a range of health care issues that have been addressed by this organization over the years. Ms. Friedman has chosen to ignore many of CCHCC's accomplishments, such as its role in creating a county-wide Public Health District, providing free dental care to children, and better reproductive health care benefits to University of Illinois employees.
4) It is stated that the Medicare 100/100+ programs were dropped by Provena Covenant because a "review" determined that they were illegal. However, Ms. Friedman fails to disclose in her article why these programs were thought to be illegal. The $20 annual fee that CCHCC collected from the participants of these programs supposedly violated a federal statute governing Medicare. However, when officials from Provena Covenant raised this issue with CCHCC, the latter organization immediately dropped the fee requirement, making this a moot point. Nonetheless, the Medicare 100/100+ programs were terminated anyway, as if CCHCC was still collecting the annual fee (which it was not). From the preceding sequence of events, it's obvious that the presumed "illegality" of the Medicare 100/100+ programs was never the real reason for their termination: Instead, it appears that Ms. Friedman was intent upon improving the bottom line of Provena Covenant, notwithstanding the terrible financial burden this imposed on many low-income senior citizens. Furthermore,no judge nor government administrator has ever ruled that these programs were illegal: This still remains an unsubstantiated fantasy of Ms. Friedman and Provena Covenant's attorney.
5) CCHCC is accused of having a "financial grudge" against Provena Covenant and its parent organization, Provena Health, because of the decision to terminate the Medicare 100/100+ programs. In fact, CCHCC never derived any profits from these programs: their costs exceeded the income from the annual fee. These costs took the form of hiring people to answer telephones in response to public inquiries, hiring staff to determine eligibility of possible program participants, mailing and data entry costs, etc. Ms. Friedman also implies in her commentary that CCHCC regularly collected a $20 annual fee from 1,100 program participants. However, it is my understanding that CCHCC collected the annual fee from no more than 650 participants in a given year, when enrollment in these programs was at its peak -- and this fee could be waived if a participant was experiencing financial hardship. Ms. Friedman appears to be referring to the number of program participants spanning several years, while failing to mention this fact.
6) Ms. Friedman also implied in her commentary that it is easy for anyone to find out the identities of Provena Covenant's Board of Directors; she claimed that the research abilities of CCHCC must be defective if they didn't know who these people are. And yet, when I called Provena Covenant's information number at 337-2000 to determine the identity of these board members, I was immediately transferred to Ms. Friedman's personal secretary and given the run-around. She stated: "It is not the policy of Provena Covenant to reveal the identities of its board members." Nor is this information available from Form 990 of the IRS, which lists only the board members of the parent organization, Provena Health; nor will anyone find the identity of these board members at Provena Covenant's own website. It has become apparent that Ms. Friedman, with or without the complicity of her secretive board, is exploiting a loophole in the reporting requirements for non-profit organizations under state and federal law, and the identities of the board members are being deliberately withheld from members of the public! Is this any way to run a local, community-based, non-profit hospital?
7) CCHCC was criticized for not knowing "where Provena Health's headquarters is." Ms. Friedman stated that, for the record, "It's in Mokena." However, according to recent filings of Form 990 with the IRS, the headquarters of Provena Health is located in Frankfort, Illinois. You would think that Ms. Friedman, as the CEO of her organization, could have at least got this one right. And from whom did Ms. Friedman obtain information regarding the discussion of Provena Health's headquarters at the town meeting? Officials from Provena Covenant publicly stated that they would refuse to attend the town meeting where this matter was discussed, nor am I aware of any local media reports containing this information. Could it be that the top management of Provena Covenant are quietly sending spies to these town meetings, while failing to acknowledge this fact to members of the public?
8) CCHCC was criticized for "blasting and sueing" Provena Covenant ever since the Medicare 100/100+ programs were terminated. It is implied that CCHCC is a litigation-prone organization. However, in its entire 25-year history, CCHCC has filed only a single lawsuit against another organization: This was on behalf of hundreds of low-income senior citizens when the Medicare 100/100+ programs were abruptly terminated by Provena Covenant, in violation of the contract with CCHCC. Since the initiation of this lawsuit, CCHCC has attempted to reach an out-of-court settlement with Provena Covenant, but officials from this latter organization have always refused to participate in such discussions.
9) Ms. Friedman asserts that Provena Covenant Medical Center provides $1 million in charity health care to members of the community; it is implied that Provena Covenant Medical Center is adhering to the principles of a charitable organization, therefore CCHCC has no legitimate basis for complaining that this organization is being managed like a for-profit business. In this regard, one might reasonably ask: Since the termination of the Medicare 100/100+ programs, what is happening to these low-income senior citizens, representing some of the most vulnerable members of our community? Is Provena Covenant providing them with charity health care? For many of these senior citizens, this appears not to be the case. In fact, during the past several years, many of them have called the health care hotline of CCHCC to complain that they are having trouble paying their medical bills, and are being taken into collections by Provena Covenant. So who's holding a financial grudge?
10) CCHCC is accused of misrepresenting Provena Health as a kind of "General Motors" of health care that is more concerned about profits than people. Ms. Friedman states that Provena Health is merely a non-profit organization that struggles to break even. In fact, Provena Health contains both non-profit and for-profit organizations. The for-profit organizations belong to a division of Provena Health called "Provena Ventures," which includes Personal Care HMO and other for-profit enterprises. Even among the non-profit organizations of Provena Health, such as Provena Covenant Medical Center, there is a growing trend toward contracting out services to for-profit firms. If this trend continues, the local hospital will become a tax-exempt shell for the operations of a multitude of for-profit firms. This raises the question of whether it is really in the interest of the public to grant tax-exempt status to such "non-profit" organizations.
11) It is stated that the concerns over patient safety at Provena Covenant Medical Center are restricted to a few disgruntled nurses who were fired from their jobs -- that the other 1,924 staff members and volunteers share no such concerns (as though Ms. Friedman can presume to speak for these people). However, at the town meetings where these nurses spoke, several other nurses in the audience expressed similar concerns about hospital safety at Provena Covenant,largely because of long working hours and cutbacks in support staff; no dissenting voices were heard. Some of these employees also expressed the fear that they might be terminated from their jobs by sharing their concerns with members of the public.
From the preceding analysis, it is apparent that the Guest Commentary of Ms. Friedman misrepresents many of the issues that CCHCC has raised with respect to her organization and Provena Health. Perhaps many of the problems that have occurred at Provena Covenant during recent years would subside if Ms. Friedman resigned from her position as CEO; a job at General Motors would provide a better fit of her talents. |
