{"id":758,"date":"2012-03-12T11:07:34","date_gmt":"2012-03-12T16:07:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.khpi.org\/blog\/?p=758"},"modified":"2012-06-20T09:36:17","modified_gmt":"2012-06-20T13:36:17","slug":"follow-up-on-uofls-search-for-a-new-partner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.khpi.org\/blog\/follow-up-on-uofls-search-for-a-new-partner\/","title":{"rendered":"Follow-up on UofL\u2019s Search For a New Partner:"},"content":{"rendered":"

Responses by University of Louisville to questions from potential applicants to its RFP.<\/h1>\n

On March 9, the University of Louisville released its responses to questions submitted following its pre-submission conference<\/a> on February 28. Some of these answers clarified questions asked at the conference. An e-mail containing the information was sent to 36 individuals and was posted on the UofL website<\/a>. Most of the recipients were University of Louisville people, but there were individuals from Norton, Catholic Health Initiatives, Baptist Hospital, Jewish Hospital, Stites & Harbison, Kauffman-Hall, Price-Waterson, Health Management Associates, and yours truly.<\/p>\n

A total of 71 questions<\/a> were responded to, or requested information provided in attachments, but amazingly little was revealed. Eighteen of the questions were dismissed with the equivalent of \u201cread my mind,\u201d \u201cyou tell us,\u201d \u201cdepends on your proposal,\u201d or \u201cwill tell you after we have decided.\u201d Bare-bones information seems to be the rule of thumb. These were not the responses I would have expected from an organization that was seriously soliciting responses from a major-league player. \u201cBrush-offs\u201d is a term that comes involuntarily to my mind as I read the responses. You can judge for yourself. Please tell me in the comments section if I am being unnecessarily harsh.<\/p>\n

Noteworthy Items.<\/h2>\n

Question 14 & 15. Financial status.<\/a>
\nUniversity Hospital is making lots of money. In 2010 its net patient service revenue was $430 million. Despite transferring $75 million to the University of Louisville from surplus cash flow and other sources, it is making a decent operational profit.<\/p>\n

Question 58. Financial transfers to the University.
\nThe $75 million referred to above is broken out into eight different categories for 2012. No details of how this money is used are provided. I think the onus is on the University to demonstrate to the State Auditor and the rest of us that this money was better handled then the Passport money and not used as a slush fund. Surely good records have been kept and are available. Why hide the information?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Question 2. Existing Relationships.
\nWhen asked about intentions relating to existing relationships with other institutions, the seemingly coy response is \u201dthere is no intention in the RFP to alter such relationships.\u201d This of course says nothing about the intentions of the University.<\/p>\n

Question 7. QCCT funding
\nThe University assumes that this state and local funding for indigent care will continue without modifications. It expects $34.4 million in the current funding period.<\/p>\n

Question 12. Governance issues.
\nThe University appears to be willing to satisfy Gov. Beshear\u2019s requirement of appropriate control of a public asset.<\/p>\n

Question 27 & 28. Open records requests.
\nDespite being resistant to responding to open records request itself, the University does not seem as committed to protecting proprietary information of potential applicants with the same passion.<\/p>\n

Question 31. Site visits and restrictions on communications.
\nThe University restates its requirement that \u201cproposers should not attempt to contact or meet with any campus representatives during the course of the RFP.\u201d I have seen that the University is willing to relax this prohibition for its latest best friend.<\/p>\n

Question 37 & others. Electronic medical records.
\nThere were a number of questions about information technology. Apparently the University will in the next 60 days announce a new vendor. I will have more to say about this later. I have been uncomfortable about the way the University has planned to market such patient information.<\/p>\n

Additional information appended:<\/h2>\n