http://www.vnews.com/news/dartmouth/13291857-95/springfield-hospital-pleads-case
Springfield Hospital Pleads Case By Rick Jurgens Valley News Staff Writer Wednesday, August 27, 2014 (Published in print: Wednesday, August 27, 2014) Montpelier — Executives of Springfield Hospital told a hearing of the Green Mountain Care Board on Tuesday that the hospital was on track to post a $1 million operating loss in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, then faced skeptical questioning about the hospital’s request for a 5.1 percent revenue increase. “If I give you this money, what does it get me in the next 10 years?” Al Gobeille, the board chairman, asked the Springfield executives who traveled here to seek state approval for a $55 million operating budget for fiscal 2015. “Sell me on it, guys, because right now I’m not buying it.” Board members worried that Springfield’s financial woes would continue. They asked how long the hospital would continue to provide financial support for an affiliated clinic that also receives federal financial subsidies — no end was anticipated, executives said — and urged them to explore additional ways to collaborate with Dartmouth-Hitchcock, as a number of other hospitals in the region have done in recent years. Gobeille said during a break in the hearing that the five-member board, which had instructed the hospitals to submit budgets with net patient service revenue increases of no more than 3 percent, would probably vote on Springfield’s request in early September. The board reviews budget proposals from all 14 Vermont hospitals. On Tuesday, the board heard from executives from Springfield and three other hospitals, including Fletcher Allen Partners, the state’s largest medical institution, which is seeking $1.1 billion in revenue, and Gifford Medical Center in Randolph, which is seeking $59.9 million. The board members seemed less interested in hospital budget specifics than in ideas about how to change the incentives and constraints that channel the $2 billion torrent of revenue flowing through the state’s hospitals each year. Fletcher Allen Chief Executive John Brumsted offered this advice: “You’ve got to have the people who are delivering health care engage with the people who are receiving health care to put in place any change that’s going to last.” But some issues won’t wait for process refinements. For example, Springfield Hospital, which now expects to post a minus 2.25 percent operating margin, said Chief Executive Tim Ford. Andy Majka, the hospital’s chief financial officer, said he could not immediately translate that estimate into a projected dollar loss, but confirmed that it would exceed $1 million. Majka said that it was too early to say whether the operating loss would be offset by non-operating revenue, which would require the hospital to tap sources that he compared to a family nest egg. Ford said that part of the revenue shortfall came because the hospital operated for some of the year without a full complement of three surgeons and other providers of revenue generating services. Staffing and security costs associated with providing mental health services in the hospital’s emergency room also hurt the bottom line, he said. In its original budget submission, the hospital spelled out its service area’s “difficult payer mix, challenging demographics, the comparatively poor health status of our residents and (its) ever increasing social challenges (poverty, low educational attainment, drug use, crime, etc.)” The hospital said it was “providing quality and value to a high risk population and unfortunately current payment mechanisms do not reward such accomplishments.” In a written response to questions from the board’s staff, Springfield said that the hospital now owes the federal government $225,000 as a result of an adverse ruling from auditors about reimbursement for the hospital’s payment of a state provider tax. That ruling could ultimately leave the hospital scrambling to come up with $1.3 million. “We do not have the cash reserves for this issue nor do we have the balance sheet reserves,” the hospital stated.
maybe the hospital should take in account,how the taxpayers in town feel,buying up building's and not paying taxes on them,how many building's do they own that are sitting empty,they really put it to the taxpayers when they took over the rec center,if they can't operate with the money they have they should stop spending,oh yeah i forgot about the addition they just put on at the hospital,boo hoo i feel sorry for them,i think i need 1 of their $50.00 aspirin
ReplyDeleteHack some exec heads at S'field hospital, and have the hospital join Dartmouth. Get much better care and better control of moneys.
ReplyDeleteBy the tenor and tone of comments and observations made by senior leadership of Springfield Hospital it is clear they don't understand what is happening around them. Bad payer mix? Too many poor people? Aging population? Poppycock and balderdash! It's a failure of leadership to recognize and understand that we are no longer in a fee for service world, that funding is becoming increasingly based on the quality of services delivered. CMS has spoken. Other 3rd party payers will speak, too. There is no longer a willingness to pay for bad healthcare. And bad healthcare is what SH provides. It is the only critical access hospital in the region that doesn't recognize the need to form alliances, build partnerships, and leverage resource. A requested 5.1% increase is an affront to the people and communities SH serves. This is 2014, and SH leadership acts like its 1954.
ReplyDeletesince the hospital has created this"monopoly" including 2 of the local pharmacies, the quality of my personal health care has gone down; I have had appointments cancelled 3 hours before my set time and not because of emergencies but the practitioner had a conference to attend; my annual physical (after being lectured about how important it was) has been cancelled because the provider will be just returning from vacation, so my physical was moved ahead 5 full months. Maybe they are trying to dump me but I'm not taking the hint because there do not seem to be any doctors taking new patients and there are certainly no doctors who are not part of the "monopoly". the office staff have told me that docs are allowed 10 min per patient and must follow procedures the hospital dictates rather than the doc's own choices. when I talk to my provider, it is like talking to text addict; she does not look at me when we talk and often logs misinformation into the computer. The powers at the hospital blame the victims (patients) rather than take responsibility for the mess they have made of this town's health care system. Since the alternative is the "butcher shop" up north, we are all stuck!
ReplyDeleteI agree that care has gone down hill as a result of recent changes at the hospital. I made an appointment for a back problem (having told them I was coming in for a back problem) only to be told by the Dr. that if it hadn't hurt for 6 weeks straight they couldn't do anything, oh, and that will be $106 on your insurance plan please. Tell me over the phone that you'll do nothing and I won't waste my time. My last annual physical, I tried to bring up some minor concerns, and was told that the appointment was only to evaluate risk factors, not discuss issues. Thank god when I did have a health crisis, SH was in a reasonable state, and I had a really good Dr. (who left, and from the rumor mill, left because of concerns about practices at SH).
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAnnual physical has been mentioned, my Dr. has not scheduled one for me in 3 years.
Methinks this is the responsibility of the patient.
Deletemy doctor is at MAH,the only time i go to Springfield is when i really hurt myself and i figure going there is a little better then dieing
ReplyDelete