[Vision2020] Selling Latah Health Services
Jerry Weitz
gweitz at moscow.com
Wed Jan 10 20:54:10 PST 2007
Perhaps, the vote format should be reconsidered until we have a good idea
of what our options are. I am not as worried about whether an entity is
non profit or for profit since the two Spokane facilities represent each
one. The for-profit takes on indigents and is not the most expensive of the
two.
I am concerned that long term care and skilled nursing will be lost to
Latah County folks and that our community will do its usual: hand wringing,
finger pointing and resolve nothing. The two from Spokane are not chains
and are reputable. They have church affiliations--Presbyterian and
Nazarene I believe. I have no problem with this since Sacred Heart,
Deaconess, St. Joseph, and the like are church affiliated and do a good
job. I certainly would not support not having Gritman in the mix.
In all cases, I believe the vote to end the reversionary clause is
necessary for recruitment efforts. Gritman is correct in requesting this
removal. I do not believe our commissioners will do anything
radical. Although, I would have asked the voters for additional funding
with a known periodicity and made the case of indigent care, I
unfortuneately suspect ,in the end, that the patronage would have choosen
not to support bond issues. Jerry
At 06:37 PM 1/10/07, Saundra Lund wrote:
>Interesting . . . I'm the exact opposite: I want primary use of the
>property to remain community health care. Accordingly, I'd be willing to
>vote for removal of the reversionary clause if and only if a *reputable*
>(and preferably non-profit) health care entity with a solid track history
>gets the property. I'm absolutely unwilling to support removal of the
>reversionary clause in a vacuum..
>
>It seems to me that if we vote to remove the reversionary clause without
>regard to the buyer, we're leaving ourselves wide open to all kinds of
>unpleasant things that have *nothing* to do with vital health care but may
>have a whole lot to do with lining the pockets of private entities at the
>expense of the loss of an important community health mandate.
>
>
>JMHO,
>Saundra Lund
>Moscow, ID
>
>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
>nothing.
>- Edmund Burke
>
>***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006, Saundra Lund.
>Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
>without the express written permission of the author.*****
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>On Behalf Of lfalen
>Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:13 PM
>To: gweitz at moscow.com; Donovan Arnold; Debbie Gray; vision2020
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Selling Latah Health Services
>
>
>
> > Thanks Jerry
> > I hope that the Commissioners read Murf's Editorial. If the February vote
>is only to remove the reversionary clause I will vote to remove it. If it is
>tied to Gritman I will vote against it. Again Gritman may be the best bet.,
>but lets look at all options. If one of the organizations is Spokane is
>interested in it, we need to know what their proposals are.
> >
> > Roger
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Jerry Weitz gweitz at moscow.com
> > Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:53:17 -0800
> > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com, "Donovan Arnold"
> > donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com, "Debbie Gray" graylex at yahoo.com,
> > vision2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Selling Latah Health Services
> >
> > > About two weeks ago, I contacted two nursing homes in the Spokane
> > > area. Both of which were/are care givers to family members. Both
> > > made inquiries to the commissioners. I asked both to contact
> > > Gritman and B J Swanson. I was the dental consultant (unpaid)for
> > > Latah Health for years and thus would like to see skilled nursing/
> > > long term care remain in the area. Having to send folks out of town
> > > and maybe out of reach of family and friends is not in the area's best
>interest.
> > >
> > > Both of the long term care facilities are private. The nursing home
> > > industry is highly regulated. Some, in the industry, say it is more
> > > regulated than the nuclear power industry. Thus, LHS, due to its
> > > structure and its limited ability to use its property as collateral,
> > > was at a distinct disadvantage.
> > >
> > > One of the Spokane privates delivers a substantial amount of
> > > indigent care. This home has 84 skilled nursing beds, 120 regular
> > > beds, and a physical therapy unit. Its facilities are on par with
> > > Good Sam. The other has about 34 skilled nursing, a substantial
> > > assisted living capacity and very high end. Both were interested
> > > in committing to our area under the right conditions. My
> > > impression,after one of the CEO's talked with BJ, was that Gritman
>wanted to retain control and the nursing home would be
> > > secondary players. Frankly, I do not know if this would work. We, as
>a
> > > community, may want to explore our future needs recognizing Gritman
> > > as a great asset, but not a long term care provider.
> > >
> > > I think that we are being rushed into a corner without exploring
> > > other possibilities and agree with Murf on just voting on the
> > > reversionary clause. I certainly do not want to have Gritman lose
> > > interest, have the facility change into a housing development, or
>confuse the public.
> > >
> > > Jerry (Just returned from 10 days in sunny Arizona)
> > >
> > >
> > > At 10:12 AM 1/5/07, lfalen wrote:
> > > >Donovan has some good points here. What is the hurry in putting it
> > > >to the voters? The only thing left is the pool and Gritman is
> > > >running it. Why spend $20,00 on a vote that has only the option of
> > > >Gritman or the status quo? Would not it have been better to
> > > >publicly solicit interest from prospective bidders. There are two
> > > >unsolicited bidders offering in excess of $200,000, both of which
> > > >would keep the pool open. Why would it have not been wise to see
> > > >who else was interested, before a costly vote is taken and might
> > > >result in putting us back were we are now. Gritman may very well be
> > > >the best bet, but we do not know that. Apparently a group in
> > > >Spokane was interested in it as assisted living facility. All options
>should be on the table before a costly vote is taken.
> > > >
> > > >Roger
> > > >-----Original message-----
> > > >From: Donovan Arnold donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> > > >Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:41:41 -0800
> > > >To: Debbie Gray graylex at yahoo.com, vision2020
> > > >vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Selling Latah Health Services
> > > >
> > > > > Debbie,
> > > > >
> > > > > My first fear is that the building will no longer be used to
> > > > > provide
> > > > a place of care for the indigent elderly and disabled members of
> > > > the Palouse community. I think that in the near future a building
> > > > will be needed for this purpose.
> > > > >
> > > > > My second fear is that the county will be duped, in that the
> > > > > building
> > > > will not be used for the purposes that Gritman wishes due to high
> > > > costs of renovation and maintenance. I think that the building
> > > > will simply be used as office space leased out by Gritman. What
> > > > else can they possibly afford to use the building for? The
> > > > renovation costs to convert that building for what they want will cost
>more than just building a new building.
> > > > >
> > > > > My third major fear is that millions of dollars that the
> > > > > taxpayers
> > > > have invested over the last 50 years into the building will be
> > > > tossed, or given away. We will be losing a multimillion dollar
> > > > investment because we don't want or cannot spend the money to
> > > > maintain and repair the building at this moment in time.
> > > > >
> > > > > The generation that fought in WWII and understands sacrifice,
> > > > sacrificed to have that building build so that they, their
> > > > children and grandchildren would have a decent place to live in
> > > > the event that they lose their independence.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would be willing to sell the building to Gritman provided that:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) The therapy pool was kept open and maintained for members
> > > > > of the
> > > > community
> > > > > 2) In the event that Gritman could not start the modifications
> > > > > as
> > > > promised within five years, the building ownership reverts back to
>Latah.
> > > > > 3) That the building be used for Non-Profit community needs ONLY.
> > > > > 4) That any offers to maintain and operate the facility as an
> > > > assisted living of skilled nursing facility take precedence over
> > > > any other proposals for use of the space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Donovan J Arnold
> > > > >
> > > > > PS, I would not be overly objective to using a portion of the
> > > > building as an alternative High School.
> > > > >
> > > > > PSS, Why does Gritman want to own the portion of property
> > > > > where the
> > > > child care center is located?
> > > > >
> > > > > Debbie Gray <graylex at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > So what are the main complaints against this proposal?
> > > > > That Gritman might change their mind and not provide the
> > > > > services they are intending? That Latah County is somehow going
> > > > > to lose out by letting this happen because....?
> > > > >
> > > > > Too tired to devil's advocate myself,
> > > > >
> > > > > Debbie Gray
> > > > >
> > > > > --- "B. J. Swanson" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Visionaries,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gritman Medical Center's Proposal to Purchase and Letter of
> > > > > > Intent regarding Latah Health Services can be found by
> > > > > > visiting Gritman's website (the front
> > > > > > page) at www.gritman.org ,
> > > > > > and clicking on the
> > > > > > "Proposal to Purchase and Letter to Latah County Regarding
> > > > > > Latah Health Services" link in the bottom right hand corner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gritman will continue to update the website with more
> > > > > > information and plans as they become available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B. J. Swanson
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet, serving
> > > > > > the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > > >
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> > > > > communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >=======================================================
> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > >=======================================================
> > >
> > >
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list