Interesting article in yesterday's News-Gazette:
For months, Champaign County Board members have mentioned asking voters to increase their taxes through a November referendum as a possible fix to nursing home expenses weighing on its budget.
With the recent creation of an advisory board and the subsequent hiring of a St. Louis consulting firm, the talk has died down as a deadline for putting the measure on the ballot nears.
I still think they'll put it on the ballot:
Other quotes:
Betz expressed doubt that the home could generate enough funds not only to sustain itself but also to come up with millions to pay back the county general corporate fund.
"The management contract has no possibility of solving the outstanding loans issue and we should not kid ourselves into thinking that it does," he said.
Ugh.
And:
Urbana Democrat Ralph Langenheim, one of the strongest supporters of a tax increase, put the home's problems in a nationwide political context.
"The blunt truth is: Every Republican national administration since Reagan has mounted repeated efforts to repeal the reforms and programs enacted by Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson," he said. "These efforts have reduced Medicaid reimbursement to the home below cost; they have also reduced support for Medicare. This is the principal cause of our nursing home's gigantic deficit."
Of course! Those damn Republicans are the reason that CCNH is lost $1.5 million this year. None of those Democrats at the state level, and certainly none at the County level, have absolutely anything to do with it.
One more:
Mahomet Republican John Jay said he supports the nursing home but not a tax increase.
"I do not believe a tax increase will solve the nursing home problems. It would only postpone the problems. We must remember the nursing home already receives an $800,000-per-year subsidy. We need to give the new nursing home board a chance to fix the problems. Just throwing money at it will not fix the problems," he said.
I hope, for the amount of money that we're spending on a County Nursing Home, that patients are being cared for who cannot receive care elsewhere.
My personal favorite was this quote.
"But another Democrat, Claudia Gross of Champaign, said she favors a referendum to increase the tax for nursing home operations to 10 cents – the maximum under law."
Why the max amount allowed? Is it because no amount of money would be enough to rescue the nursing home in its current incarnation? Perhaps the citizens of Champaign County have too much money?
At some point we have to realize that raising taxes year after year is not a solution to an out flow problem. What would we do next year when we need more money and the law doesn’t allow us to take anymore?
I think John Jay would make an excellent Chairman of a new county board.
It would be irresponsible for the voters NOT to oppose a tax increase while there is so much evidence of mismanagement and so little action by the county board to elucidate the problems either to themselves or to the public. The public is still waiting for answers to the allegations of accounting irregularities and answers to the questions raised by Rachel Schwartz.
It is a insult to the intelligence of the all-too-often misinformed and misled voters that anyone should try to claim that cause of the deficit is anything other than gross incompetency in management. Until there is clear demonstration of responsibility, it is sheer foolishness to pump more funds into that black hole.
I attended the CCNH BOD meeting at 7:30A this morning. Here are some of the items that were covered during the meeting that might address postings under this title and other titles.
1. One of the Green Party candidates read a statement during the public participation part of the meeting urging the BOD to support a referendum on the ballot because the nursing home needs additional funds and it not done now, it will be two years before another referendum can be put on the ballot.
2. There were informational reports about the nursing home volunteers and ideas to expand this program and the status of nursing in the USA and what this means related to enticing people to study nursing/CNA and locally how to hire more help for the nursing home. Neither report presented any new information.
3. Peter Czajkowski asked a number of questions about the nursing home finances. (I did not have a copy of this report, which made it difficult to follow the questions.) He requested that the finances be reported as part of the management report. He asked about IGT (this is a bit technical so I hope that I, in turn, can explain this.) This stands for intergovernmental transfer. (The program is scheduled to be eliminated or restructured in the future.) Basically it means that the nursing home gets the money in 30 days as compared to the longer delay related to getting the reimbursement from Medicaid. Another question focused on is ONR, related to the rehab issue that Rachel Schwartz has presented financial reports about. As best as I understand some of the differential in the reported amounts has to do in the manner that the billing is done. The present company does not appear to be willing to change billing from a 30 days cycle/patient to a time rehab delivered billing. According to MPA, there is a high percentage chance that there will be a RFP to look at other options for out sourcing the rehab services. He mentioned several companies that work with other nursing homes MPA manages.
During this conversation, appreciation was expressed for the work that Rachel has done in ferreting out some accounting abnormalities though MPA stated that they would have found these though Rachel's work speeded up the process. Al Nudo, though, stated that Rachel's presentation at the finance committee meeting was supposed to be a paper presentation, not verbal. (I have no idea of the background information on these arrangements.)
4. A committee was established to look at the work environment at the nursing home. This is an extension of the information presented about the condition of the nursing profession in the USA. Within that presentation was information about retention of nursing staff. This committee is to work in conjunction with MPA.
5. A committee was established to look at various avenues to market the nursing home--for perspective residents, for employees, and for general information about the home. Concern was expressed that there continues to be a negative atmosphere surrounding the home and the BOD feels that there are positive steps being taken.
6. A heads up--the meeting time of the BOD will probably be changed to the first Thursday after the second Monday of the month at 6P. Location was not mentioned. Check the web page to confirm the proposed change. The date for the next meeting mentioned is 11 Sept.
7. During public participation, I suggested, based on the previously expressed concerns during the meeting about negative views and misreporting, that the BOD minutes be less an executive report, but more complete and include information about what people stated during public participation. This is in the interest of complete reporting and transparency. Further, I urged that the MPA contract be up on the web site to minimize misinterpretations and the MPA monthly report.
8. Pius attended the meeting so he might add to the accuracy of this report.
9. Only the 3 people, I have mentioned, besides the board attended the meeting.
Pattsi Petrie
"One of the Green Party candidates read a statement during the public participation part of the meeting urging the BOD to support a referendum on the ballot because the nursing home needs additional funds and it not done now, it will be two years before another referendum can be put on the ballot."
I don't think this is true. Why can't a referendum be called for February or April 2009, if the County Board so chooses?
I am certain that someone in the County Clerk's office can clarify the various time options for a county referendum in the upcoming months and years.
Pattsi Petrie
Al Nudo helpfully clarified at the end of the meeting, since I asked for that during my comments, that the next opportunity for any action on a potential referendum for additional fudning for CCNH would be during the April 2009 election.