This started out to be the shortest ever post in the history of this policy blog. All I had to report was the following press release from Norton Healthcare.
Earlier today, representatives from Norton Healthcare and U of L held a meeting to discuss a number of issues relating to Kosair Children’s Hospital. Norton officials characterized the discussion by saying:
“We had a constructive meeting and plan to meet again.”
I was going to add that in diplomatic-speak, this amounts to the equivalent of, “everyone walked away from the meeting alive.”
However I found that Chris Kenning of the Courier-Journal reported some additional information from University officials. In comments attributed to Dr. David Dunn, it was suggested
“that the U of L would offer to amend its agreements with partner KentuckyOne Health to assuage one of Norton’s biggest fears — that U of L was trying to “evict” Norton from the hospital.”
He stated that the University
“has no intention of evicting Norton whatsoever, and that we simply want to get a master affiliation agreement in place and end this conflict.”
While that is a generous-sounding beginning, Dunn cannot speak for KentuckyOne Health or Catholic Health Initiatives who would have to be willing to drop their contract language and to do so in short order. The University has given much of its clinical, academic, and even research independence to these organizations. If I were Norton, I would want bulletproof assurance that such language would never appear again and that Norton would not again be held hostage to negotiating intransigence. If all UofL has to do is unilaterally claim that Norton is not honoring its agreements, we would be back in the same place again.
Dr. Dunn’s claim that eviction was never intended is belied by UofL’s actions. A threat is a threat, especially when delivered in a lawyer’s letter. Who can read this letter and claim with a straight face that eviction is not on the table? UofL, I know you read these pages. Please comment below, if you can, and tell us why this language does not mean what it says. Explain to us what you really meant in your agreement with CHI and KentuckyOne Health. Whose idea was it? I for one would like to know. Please help us understand.
It will take some out-of-the-box thinking and genuine cooperation to settle this matter. As I noted earlier in my coverage of this matter, nothing will be the same again between the two parties. I suggest starting with a fairly clean slate. For example, the requirement that UofL be allowed to sit on Norton’s Boards and Executive Committees became untenable when UofL married Catholic Health Initiatives and KentuckyOne Health. (Unless of course KentuckyOne Health reciprocates with access to its Boards.) The Commonwealth would have to agree with this as well because it wrote the lease.
Without some assurance from the Commonwealth or the court that it and not UofL had the sole authority to cancel the lease, Norton will always have the sword of Damocles hanging over its head– not a good basis for a partnership. This has to be dealt with.
We of the public do not fully know what else UofL and Norton are really arguing about. It will therefore be impossible to fully judge with confidence who is being difficult and who is not. I have little hope that much more will be revealed, but we should all wish them the best. We have authorized both parties to take care of our children on our behalf. More is owed us than what we are seeing.
Peter Hasselbacher, MD
President, KHPI
Emeritus Professor of Medicine, UofL
September 16, 2013