http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2012/08/30/uams-st-vincent-plan-affiliation Comments On: UAMS, St. Vincent plan affiliation: Update 2 by Leslie Newell Peacock en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Sat, 18 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Sat, 18 May 2013 17:00:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
http://www.medicarerhodeisland.com/


Posted by samanthaa]]> Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:46:41 -0600 Arkansas Times http://www.uams.edu/AdminGuide/WIN05301.ht…


Posted by Brian Reddick]]> Mon, 03 Sep 2012 03:12:53 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by Brian Reddick]]> Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:46:25 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by Elijah]]> Sun, 02 Sep 2012 19:35:37 -0500 Arkansas Times
Wait until you see similar accounting.

Moreover, SVIs hospital figures don't show you a penny of the care done by docs associated with SVI but not employed by them
Posted by olddoc]]> Sun, 02 Sep 2012 16:24:40 -0500 Arkansas Times
If a pregnant female was admitted at St. Vincent's for delivery, she would have to be transferred to UAMS after the birth if she wanted a tubal, delivery of contraceptives, etc. This is not only an unnecessary burden on the patient, it is a violation of her privacy and confidentiality. It is going to cost more because of the amount of people involved, transportation costs, administrative costs. It is going take more time, and the patient is going to have a diminished continuity of care as she is drug around the hospitals from room to room because of the whims of a theocratic administration.


What about the female patient that needs fertility treatments? Under both plans constructed and submitted in Kentucky, the public hospital had to confirm to the religious edicts of the Catholic Church though their ERDs. Thus the church would have control of a public institution and university, and limits healthcare options based on religion. This is an unconstitutional and unnecessary entanglement of religion.

UAMS can partner with any secular hospital it wants, as long as the standard of care and availability of treatments remains the same, and UAMS does not transfer, sell, or otherwise dispose of its assets or facilities. I do not trust CHI or UAMS to police themselves, as I know better, and I know the intentions of the Catholic Church as well. The Catholic church has a horrible record of cleaning its own house, and I can't believe anyone would suggest that they should be in a position to oversee the care of the public at large with use of public facilities, taxpayer money, and donations to the secular university and hospital. I don't want the same church authorities that covered up the largest child molestation investigation in the history of the planet to be in control of taxpayer money or be in position to abuse their authority by imposing their religion or twisted morality. The Catholic church may very well be the largest organized crime organization on earth.

Religion and public funds do not belong together, ever. They should not talk, sit by each other at the lunch table, let alone make out in my car in the parking lot. If people want to visit a religious hospital for medical treatment that is their choice, however, to force this burden on the general public via legislative fiat is unconstitutional and immoral.

Taxpayer money should never be used to facilitate or encourage religion to thrive. A secular, public university has no business mixing with religion and there is no room to blur the line on this issue any further. If Catholics want to spread their religion based healthcare they can build another building, but sucking off the public teat is not an option, and it never has been.




Posted by TheGadfly]]> Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:41:39 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by Verla Sweere]]> Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:13:23 -0500 Arkansas Times I looked it up. Uncompensated Care UAMS $165M, SVI with more beds, $65M. Now, this is hospital cost accountants, so both sets of data facts are dubious, but the dubiousness is comparable.

SVI from Ark Business, UAMS from a consultants publication.

Look it up.
Posted by Diogenes]]> Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:00:02 -0500 Arkansas Times The uncompensated care is a matter of record, and fact, that how I "know".


If you were a resident anywhere in last 40 years, except in a childrens hospital, Medicare paid 100% of your salary, and no that has not changed. Recently FINALLY, pediatric hospitals were provided training money, tho Repubs propose killing that.

SVI and BMC skate very very close to the EMTALA line, esp the ER at........Well, I won't say, you know who you are
http://www.emtala.com/

This affiliation thing could work. BUT it needs close watching, by you, me, and all of us.

Affordable Care Act may be our last best hope, per the Arkansas Hospital Association.

PS, just curious, Old Doc, which decade did you graduate med school?The Doc in the Diogenes clan, in late 70s.

Posted by Diogenes]]> Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:47:30 -0500 Arkansas Times
Any hospital in the Nation has to render Emergency care to anyone walking in their ER....even if that patient stays six weeks.

Call the ortho clinic, the ENT clinic, the Eye clinic to ask them to see an uninsured patient, "We don't take those. call someone else.". It's easier for me to beg a SVI doc to do me a favor than to slip an uninsured patient in UAMS"...

......and that's in spite of the tens of MILLIONS that the federal government gives UAMS to pay the residents and internns who do much of the " free" care.

Yeah, the "story" is that all the free care is done at the University.....audit it
Posted by olddoc]]> Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:22:07 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by plssavus]]> Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:30:32 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by the outlier]]> Sat, 01 Sep 2012 08:01:11 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by Diogenes]]> Sat, 01 Sep 2012 07:21:16 -0500 Arkansas Times
Noblesse oblige, or droit de seigneur?

RE:

"Yes, the Kumpuris's "own" St. Vincent's. Dickson Flake "owns" the Catholic diocese. Next question?"

Posted by Diogenes]]> Sat, 01 Sep 2012 07:15:17 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by joanimal]]> Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:09:21 -0500 Arkansas Times
I have talked with several colleagues and doctors, and NONE of them knew this was coming down the pipe. None of the employees at St. Vincent's was aware that this was happening, and none of the employees of UAMS were aware this was happening. The exception to that fact is, of course, the upper echelon of corporate executives, and the Catholic Church were aware of this deal.

Thank you Arkansas Times for a fantastic job of investigative journalism, and for helping Arkansans stay informed. The highest calling of a news organization is to guarantee a well informed citizenry, and you have done a fantastic job in this endeavor.

The doctors I have spoken with are uniformly opposed to this deal, and for a few of them this is the final insult, and excuse they needed to leave Arkansas, and take their education, training, money, and brilliant minds with them. I can't really blame them for that decision either.
Posted by TheGadfly]]> Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:55:52 -0500 Arkansas Times
Yes, I read the entire plan, as well as the Kentucky AG's opinion on why this was illegal and a stupid idea, and why the Governor refused to sign off on the deal, twice.

Deloitte is getting paid $125,000 a week, to see if they can work around the law to put this deal together. The merger was rejected in Kentucky, which is why UAMS and Banco are going to extreme lengths to distance themselves from the word "merger". They are thinking if they do not actually own public assets then this will not violate the law, but they are wrong.

They are going to change the policy, which is what CHI is after, so that the public university and commonwealth owned hospital is now under the control of the Catholic Church.

Did they even give a public notice of a bid for services or did they just swallow the million dollar fee in an attempt to keep this quite and out of public view? I think I already know the answer to that one, but if I am wrong in assuming they just paid it under the table and hoped nobody raised a fuss they could get away with it, someone please tell me.

That $1 Million bucks doesn't even cover postage, copying charges, phone calls, administrative costs, etc. These people just raked them over the coals and will continue to do so, but who cares, it's the taxpayer's money anyway, not theirs.

The only people in favor of this is CHI, Catholics who want more power, and greedy executives who want to control the point of sale so they can make more money and enforce their theology at the same time. This is going to be a huge step in consolidating all medical providers in the state under two corporations. If the current trend continues, Arkansans will have two places they can go for medical care. A Baptist Hospital or a Catholic one.
Posted by TheGadfly]]> Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:47:33 -0500 Arkansas Times
Nobody knows how this will affect the doctors a Children's Hospital, as we don't know what the Catholic Church will control and what UAMS will control. However, if we look at what Catholic Health Initiatives (the corporation that runs St. Vincent's) tried to do in Kentucky, we can see that they tried to take over the public university AND public hospital, and put it under the control of the Roman Catholic Church theology.

This is why the Attorney General wrote an opinion damning the merger, and he deemed it a violation of the US Constitution and the Kentucky Constitution. The plan called for the Catholic Church Bishops to approve of all medical treatment, services, etc.

St. Vincent's does not allow its employees to receive any coverage for contraceptives, health care, and family planning services that do not comport with the Catholic theology. So, who knows that the Catholic Church will do with the doctors at a Children's Hospital. I can guarantee you though they will be effected by this deal, everyone in the state of Arkansas will be changed by this fiasco.
Posted by TheGadfly]]> Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:28:09 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by cecil]]> Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:58:08 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by Brian Reddick]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:07:40 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by Self Appointed Arbiter]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:02:52 -0500 Arkansas Times
How has this been done in secret and these idiots still have their jobs at UAMS? I will never give another red cent to UAMS, ever. They have violated the public trust, and it will never be earned back.

Contact these morons and let them know that until this illegal "jointly owned and governed network" (read merger) is ended, and the Chancellor thrown out on his head, you will not give another dime to UAMS.

Main Number: 501-686-8200
Fax: 501-686-5067
Email: giving@uams.edu
Mailing Address:
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Office of Institutional Advancement
4301 W. Markham, #716
Little Rock, AR 72205-7199

I don't want a Catholic Bishop in the room with me or my doctors determining my health care based on the Bible. Somebody is getting sued, and sued, and sued, and sued.
Posted by TheGadfly]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:52:56 -0500 Arkansas Times
How can a public institution and a private/sectarian one have "shared goals and a shared vision for the future?" I think there will be anti-trust implications as well as huge church-state problems.
Posted by Perplexed]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:34:03 -0500 Arkansas Times Call the UofA System at 686-2600 and the Governor's office at 682-2345
The more people they hear from the better stop this in its tracks.....What a bad idea....
Posted by joanimal]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:28:18 -0500 Arkansas Times Posted by joanimal]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:10:40 -0500 Arkansas Times