Thursday, April 4, 2013

Shootout at the OK Corral

It appears that a lot has been going on under the table with respect to the Fairview Sanford marriage. Apparently the U is not particularly sympathetic to the move.  

From the Star-Tribune:

University of Minnesota proposes takeover of Fairview hospitals

Bid seen as a pre-emptive strike against Fairview merger with Sanford Health

The University of Minnesota has proposed taking over Fairview Health Services in a move that would pre-empt a proposed merger between Fairview and South Dakota-based Sanford Health.

Fairview has controlled the U’s medical center since 1997, and the prospect of a merger between Fairview and Sanford could put the flagship hospital under new authority out of state.

But in a letter to Fairview executives, University President Eric Kaler has proposed a deal in which the university would assume all the assets and liabilities of Fairview, putting the university in control of the Twin Cities’ second-largest hospital and clinic chain.
And what might those liabilities be?  

And doesn't this indicate that the original move by the U to sell out to Fairview may have been a mistake?  And if this is the case, what confidence should people in Minnesota believe that the University would be capable of running an even bigger system, not just University Hospital?

Perhaps this time any new arrangement involving the U of M hospital could be done with all parties putting their cards on the table? 

The Jan. 28 letter, obtained by the Star Tribune, said the alignment excluding Sanford would be the “best choice for our patients and communities, our state, and our physicians, staff and students.’The letter also says the university would use its financial resources to help the U and Fairview expand and “invest to meet community needs.’’

But weren't we told recently that if the U didn't agree the marriage wouldn't happen?

And what, exactly, financial resources of the university are being promised here?

The letter sheds new light on a complex set of negotiations that have drawn scrutiny from Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson. She is scheduled to hold a public hearing Sunday at the State Capitol to examine the negotiations and what is at stake for Minnesota.

It certainly does.  Why don't we see a little more of the transparency that is supposed to be the new hallmark of the U. It was also supposed to be true for the old U, under Bruniniks, but that claim has been proven to be an illusion. 

Kaler said Fairview hasn’t provided much of a response to his overture, but said he is scheduled next week to discuss the option with Fairview’s board of directors.

To be the proverbial fly on the wall... 

Chuck Mooty, Fairview’s board chairman and acting chief executive, said Thursday that Fairview’s board is considering all of its options and isn’t close to making any decisions.

And two of those board members are U of M administrators.  

No comments: