[Vision2020] Selling Latah Health Services

[lfalen]

B.J.

Thanks for your comments. I think Gritman is doing and will continue to do a good job. My only concern is to make sure we look at all available possibilities. I have not looked at the statues, but I am confused as to why it is unlawful to have the reversionary clause on the ballot bu it's self, but would be ok to have it on there in conjunction with a sale to one party. Making space available for county offices would be desirable. On the face of it, I would think it would be unlawful to sell county property with out putting it out for every one to bid on. On a bid bases stipulations could be made about what it is to be used for.


Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "B. J. Swanson" bjswan at moscow.com
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:25:28 -0800
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Selling Latah Health Services

> Jerry & Roger,
> 
> There are some inaccuracies in your Vision 2020 posts that I feel must be
> clarified.  I am writing this as a Latah County citizen and not as Chair of
> the Board of Gritman Medical Center.
> 
> Murf Raquet's editorial in the Weekend Daily News presented an interesting
> but unfeasible concept.  This was reviewed by the Latah County Commissioners
> and County Attorney Bill Thompson at the Board of County Commissioners
> meeting on Monday, January 8.  Mr. Thompson said that the Idaho Statutes are
> clear that simply asking voters to remove the reversionary clause from a
> county owned health care related property is not allowed.  I believe the
> Statutes are 31-3515 and 31-3515A.
> 
> It is very unfortunate that Latah Health Services closed and many skilled
> care and assisted living residents were forced to move elsewhere.  LHS had
> been in serious financial trouble for at least the last five years.  It was
> unable to adequately maintain the facility and found it very difficult to
> borrow money to fix it partially because of the reversionary clause.  County
> officials were concerned that a tax supported bond to fix the facility would
> not pass.
> 
> Jerry is correct in stating that the nursing home industry is highly
> regulated.  It is also very poorly reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid.
> Quite often the reimbursements do not even pay the costs of care, not
> including maintaining a facility. 
> 
> LHS tried for years to recruit nursing home operators to manage the skilled
> nursing and assisted living areas.  Where were the Spokane companies then?
> No one was beating down the LHS door to take over this facility.  They
> finally contracted with (begged) Valley Vista in hopes that a more
> experienced operator could make it work.  With poor reimbursement and a
> facility in disrepair, Valley Vista could not make it work either.  This
> trend is very common in the nursing home industry. Bankruptcy and failures
> are common and include previous owners of Aspen Park, Clark House and Aging
> with Grace.  Now add LHS to the failure list.  If this is such a lucrative
> industry that two Spokane care companies are all of a sudden interested,
> then why didn't they show up several years ago?  In my opinion, neither
> seemed very interested now, either.  It is common that nursing facilities
> must have a majority of private pay residents to basically subsidize the
> Medicaid residents.  Thinking that Rockwood Manor or Sunshine Gardens from
> Spokane could make this work with mostly Medicaid residents with Idaho
> reimbursement rates is a fallacy.  Jerry said they were interested "...under
> the right conditions."  It would be interesting to know what conditions.
> For Latah County taxpayers to subsidize Spokane companies, one for-profit
> and one non-profit, would probably not be popular either. 
> 
> Gritman is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation.  It is owned by the community
> and governed by a 10 member community board. Gritman's mission is to meet
> the healthcare needs of the community and has been doing this for over 100
> years.  Any profits that Gritman makes are reinvested in healthcare for this
> community, not Spokane, not dividends for shareholders and all board members
> are unpaid volunteers.  
> 
> If the voters approve transfer of the property to Gritman, it is Gritman's
> intent to remodel the facility into a community wellness center for the
> benefit of the whole community.  This will include the therapy pool, Gritman
> Adult Day Health and many other wellness services that are currently being
> studied, including the possibility of assisted living if a viable operator
> can be found.  Gritman is also willing to lease back space for County
> offices. It is estimated that just bringing the facility up to safety
> standards will cost well over $1 million, which Gritman is willing to
> invest.  Removing the reversionary clause will enable Gritman to negotiate
> more favorable financing to fund the necessary renovations and repairs.
> Leaving the reversionary clause in place would make it financially
> unfeasible for Gritman to operate the facility as a non-profit wellness
> center.  
> 
> Gritman has never developed property for anything but healthcare related
> purposes and has never wavered from that position.  I am confident the
> expert planners, managers, grant writers, etc., available to Gritman can
> make LHS a valuable community asset now and far into the future.
> 
> B. J. Swanson
> Latah County Citizen
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================