TAXPAYER $$$

Crazy day! Let's get back to looking at taxpayer funding of this CON opposition...AND CONTINUED APPEAL !

According to the Columbia Daily Herald, Maury Regional Hospital has admitted to spending $167,400 thus far in their cause to oppose Spring Hill Hospital. I think that this is a conservative estimate, and does not include a single cent of the appeal process. Does anyone now doubt the WASTE of TAXPAYER money as our elected officials continue this fight against a 7-1 decision?

I would LOVE to see actual numbers from Williamson Medical, because it will far eclipse the total from Maury County taxpayers.

Columbia Daily Herald Article

Maury Regional spends $167,000 in turf war



By SKYLER SWISHER/Staff Writer
Maury Regional Hospital loaded its slingshot with at least $167,400 in its initial attempt to ward off “Goliath,” and more expenses could be forthcoming in the nonprofit health provider’s fight against the nation’s largest for-profit hospital chain.

MRH recently responded to The Daily Herald’s request for a breakdown of expenses as of July 26, the date of a state hearing in which officials voted 7-1 to allow HCA to build a 56-bed, $105-million hospital in Spring Hill.

MRH CEO Robert Otwell has compared the hospital’s opposition to HCA’s proposal to “David versus Goliath.”

During the first round of the battle, MRH spent $77,500 in attorney and legal fees, $75,500 in contracted services and $14,400 in advertising and marketing, according to data provided by the hospital.

Contracted services included a study by a population analyst as well as communications consulting by a Nashville-based public-relations firm.

MRH did not release an itemized list of expenses. Instead, officials provided three lump sums for attorney and legal fees, contracted services and advertising and marketing.

Rita Williams, director of marketing for MRH, said the hospital was unable to determine expenses incurred as a result of employee hours spent working on MRH’s campaign against the proposed hospital.

But she said the potential costs of allowing a Spring Hill hospital to be built more than justify the expenses.

“Any hospital in America is going to oppose a new hospital 14 miles from its front door,” she said. “The potential loss of patient revenue is substantial and would significantly overshadow any expenses.”

The decision by MRH and Williamson Medical Center to appeal the certificate-of-need approval began the second round of the showdown. A hearing will be conducted from April 11-24 before an administrative law judge.

The appeals process could cost the losing party tens of thousands of dollars in administrative fees, deposition fees and expert witness fees, said Reid Brogden, general counsel for the Health Services and Development Agency.

MRH paid legal fees accrued as of July 26 to Nashville-attorney Dan Elrod of Miller & Martin, PLLC, officials said.

Williams said MRH did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether to appeal the agency’s decision. Since the agency’s inception in 2002, no appeal has overturned the Health Services and Development Agency’s decision, Brogden said.

Williams said it would be “speculative to estimate the cost of the appeals process.”

Frank Morgan, a Nashville-based health-care industry analyst with Jefferies & Co., said he is not surprised by MRH’s decision to appeal.

“I don’t know if it is a wise decision,” Morgan said. “It is certainly normal they would take this thing through every avenue of the existing procedural process. That’s just the way it works. People do that. Even if they lose, they’ll go through the appeals until there is absolutely no appeals process left.”

NO CHOICE?

The consequences of standing aside as a new hospital moves in could be serious for Maury Regional and the community, Williams said.

A second hospital in Maury County would skim off well-insured patients from MRH, duplicate services already provided, raise the cost of health care in the region and threaten MRH’s ability to deliver care to all patients in southern Middle Tennessee, regardless of their ability to pay, she said.

“After carefully examining the impact that another hospital would have on MRH, we felt it was our obligation to protect the financial well-being of the hospital ... for all of the 260,000 residents of our region who depend on us, including those in Spring Hill,” she said.

Morgan said legal disputes among hospitals are not uncommon in states that utilize a certificate-of-need process.

“At the end of the day, an existing hospital company doesn’t want new competition,” he said. “That’s the bottom line. They’d just as soon not have any competition.”

One expense reported by MRH was the hiring of a population growth analysis expert, a one-time expenditure that Williams said will benefit MRH during its appeals hearing.

MRH also contracted with Jarrard Phillips Cate & Hancock Inc., a public affairs firm founded in January. MRH is no longer using the firm, Williams said.

“If you asked a resident in any town if they would like a hospital, chances are they would immediately respond with a ‘yes,’” Williams said. “That is because we see hospitals as a good thing. So you can see we were presented with a challenge of educating those we serve about why we opposed another hospital in the county.”

MRH bankrolled all of the expenses of Coalition4Care, a group of health-care workers and citizens dedicated to opposing an HCA hospital in Maury County.

Williams said “adjustments will be made in other administrative areas of the budget to offset ... expenses,” but she could not specify what adjustments were made.

“It is not possible to itemize the expense reductions,” she said. “Overall, even with the additional unforeseen expenses, the hospital achieved its targeted budget for fiscal year 2006.”

HCA DECLINES REQUEST

The Daily Herald made a similar request for information from HCA, but officials declined to release any information about the hospital’s expenditures.

Cheryl Chubbs, an HCA spokeswoman, cited the hospital’s status as a private corporation as a justification for withholding the information.

“Our expenses are proprietary,” she said. “Sharing this type of information would set a precedent and generate numerous other requests.”

Chubbs said most of HCA’s marketing expenses are budgeted a year in advance and none were set aside specifically for efforts to win approval for a hospital in Spring Hill. At any rate, such a comparison would not be “apples to apples,” she said.

“It is not real easy because our advertising is placed for all of our hospitals together under a group,” Chubbs said.

“The only thing we ran were four ads talking about four community events,” she added. “That was the only thing that was specific to Spring Hill.”

Even if MRH’s appeal is unsuccessful, the hospital’s decision to appeal could postpone construction of HCA’s hospital by nine months, Chubbs said.

“Our expenses will surpass our original projections due to the appeal filed by Maury Regional and Williamson Medical Center,” she said.

If built, the Spring Hill hospital would open in 2010.

Remember folks, loser pays ALL in the appeal process! When the judge upholds the 7-1 decision by the HSDA, Maury and Williamson County TAXPAYERS will foot the entire legal cost! I hope that our elected officials remember this decision when their re-elections come up. How many teacher salaries would this pay for? What kind of school facilities could be built for the kind of figures that we are little throwing around? What kind of infrastructure improvements could be made with this sea of cash?

Stop this appeal process, and stop WASTING our time and money!