It may not be Wall Street, but there's a wall on this street: Kern Valley Healthcare District
Before the presentation of the strategic plan, I received the draft with the initial plans, such as becoming closer partners with other clinics in town. Okay...
The first draft indicated only "Sienna Wellness Institute," would be cozying up to the district, as if they are not already.
The institute is owned by Dr. Robert Gross, DO, KVHD board member, hospitalist, hospitalist group utilizing his clinic employees, former adversary who hired an attorney against the district, along with lining his clinic with campaign signs for the newly elected board vote, David Derr. His partner is Dr. Finstad, the Medical Director for the hospital.
How much closer could they possibly get?
Having the draft to compare to the final version made it interesting as suddenly Sienna Wellness was omitted and Sierra Clinica Vista (another former debtor with "Cal Mtg.) took its place. Sienna Wellness was not even included in the final plan, why would that be? They were not forced to choose only one.
I will put the document up for all to see soon, but I want to understand something before we go there.
Stonewalling the watchdog
I wrote to KVHD board counsel, Scott Nave, of Leimieux and Oneill, and asked about why there was a special meeting for a strategic planning vote. His response was that the hospital wanted the community there to hear all about the plan. I have been around here too long to fall for that pick up line. Next, he will add, "we care."
Usually, a special meetings require some urgency, or maybe privacy, but this was not the case, as we return to the issue of how this recent strategic planning contract bidding process went awry.
How much longer will I have to accept these answers that should be simple, consistent, but we all know the community doesn't know about most of these special meetings unless they make a point of going into the hospital and finding the glass case. It's the general meetings, the first Wednesday of every month, where you see or used to see, the crowds.
Though it was a special meeting it was not informational it was action that needed immediate attention to comply with the grant requirements associated with one of the most openly bizarre bid for a contract. I have had to struggle to find out what happened with this grant money being directed at one contractor as I've explained in earlier posts.
We don't have time for the public
But certain board members have complained that meetings run "too long." I find that obnoxious as if there are issues to be dealt with, those elected weren't forced to run for the board, they get paid per meeting, and even get healthcare benefits. I would like to take umbrage with meetings being truncated by elected officials who are not fulfilling their due diligence as a trustee to the district.
(Have you ever wondered if the board or even the CEO use there own healthcare services? You'll be surprised by the answer, if I ever get it. I like confirmation first, but let me say, they likely won't be sitting next to you in the waiting room of the rural health clinic or ER.)
KVHD board in a hurry
There was an incident when I brought in my third request for an investigation of certain hospital administrators and personnel to a general board meeting. I began reading the request into the record, but was rushed, and when another audience member asked to use her three minutes to hear the rest of the request she was told she could not. Why not? There is nothing prohibiting this.
Chairwoman, Victoria Alwin, shut down the request with a weak excuse, regarding something about taking too much time, dominating the meeting and keeping board members late. Apparently, Miss Alwin, has forgotten she is "serving" on the board. Try coffee or tea.
Or maybe we can go "tele-board meetings" and she can work from home timing the words of the community members she serves so they don't violate the most important issue: the three minute rule.
But then, the Chairwoman's choke hold on comments, hardly touches the other issues such as a situation I reported to the KVHD, CEO, Tim McGlew and was taken aback by his response.
Clarify this for me
Why can't a person who is related to someone who has a lawsuit against the hospital file a complaint, not a claim, with the hospital regarding a totally different issue? Another unsatisfactory answer for the public.
It was a complaint from a woman whose mother has a lawsuit against the district regarding the elder abuse case from 2006/2007.
Her daughter had no claim or lawsuit filed against the district, but the CEO refused to hear her issue, which had to do with an ER doctor who treated her child, and the board counsel said he did not have to hear her "complaint."
The information I received, by email, does not seem to fit the normal course of action. She had a a right to make a complaint regardless of her relationship with the other lawsuit. And since it had nothing to do with that case, it appeared illogical, therefore untrustworthy information.
We will cover claims and complaints, but I need people to be aware, that the board attorney has told me he investigates the claims coming to the hospital. So, where is Beta-group, and how may have they answered the question as the district's liability carrier?
However, regarding simple complaints from those darn complainers out there that could actually help them improve services with the knowledge, are likely round filed. But not all complaints can be round filed especially if there is an issue with possible illegal activities or unsafe practices.
Make sure to follow up and pursue answers beyond that of the hospital.
BACK to the special strategic planning meeting: Ahoy!
Each year the hospital gets SHIP grant monies, if they qualify, and there are specific uses for the small sum averaging 9,000 dollars.
As I've been asking, why was only MICHAEL PHILPS allowed to use that money to offset his bid for the job? I've never seen this happen before...anywhere, but is certainly not done in a public hospital setting.
So, the deadline to finish this project was 8/31/11, and the regular board meeting was 9/7/11. Again, pennies turn into dollars, but all of this is fishy, and I am done fooling around with the PRA, Public records act, which has turned into requests unfulfilled dating back three years. I explained this to the hospital's attorney, and he has yet to respond.
The issues I am bringing up are the causes of the districts problems and if we continue down the same path we will get the same results. At this time, they have no bananas, they have no bananas today...(sing along)
Persistance and Tenacity, requires a new chapter, a new beginning....
Showing posts with label Betagroup liability practices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Betagroup liability practices. Show all posts
Friday, October 28, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Dr. Kent Skoegerson or Betagroup liability: a clarification
My real question is the Kern Valley Healthcare District "Human Escort them out" Department
Someone asked me about Kern Valley Healthcare District Surgeon, Dr. Kent Skoegerson; I was asked for details as to what a Google search unearthed recently.
First, in cases where doctors or healthcare personnel lose their licenses, there are rarely details to share for those of us surfing the government sites.
But, I clarified to this person that Dr. Skoegerson has nothing to do with the point of my post. So, I obviously didn't clear the message.
I have seen, and many of these documents are posted on this blog, resumes and credentials that don't add up to either reality, or there are even truly misleading and in one certain case completely obvious, that these people are not what their handy stories actually say.
Why have so many slipped through the cracks in HR, or Human Remorse Department?
The process of hiring is different depending on the level of the position you are fishing for. How could a CEO come in with a diploma mill resume? How can a CFO say he has the experience in certain areas and then never complete them? Are all the positions filled with a cursory look?
Then you have the board of directors selecting the administration which would qualify as either another set of eyes or possibly total reliance on the HR department. And even possibly collusion as the employment ends with a vote.
Regarding Dr. Kent Skoegerson
Dr. Skoegerson obviously had something go wrong, seriously so. But none of us, including me, were there or know what happened.
What we do know is that KVHD was desperate for a surgeon as they needed one to qualify as a full fledged hospital.
We also know that they were choosing from doctors who had liability problems. The hospital keeps liability insurance through Betagroup and this outfit decides whether a person in such an important position, (they are all important positions as healthcare requires a team effort, including the patients...for later) can be covered properly by their insurance.
A surgeon was turned away because of "liability" issues prior to the arrival of Dr. Skoegerson.
The question for Betagroup is what was so different in the two cases of the surgeons of the KRV? What sort of research is done, and do they automatically avoid errors say that happened in other states?
Who and what is the problem?
Dr. Skoegerson has done a small number of surgeries compared to other hospitals, but he has done this for almost six years.
Why now does the KVHD board believe he should be terminated from his contract?
Doctors are hard to find, so take any you can get past Betagroup's obviously stringent standards?
Again, the area I'm interested in is the hiring practices of the KVHD administration and board, their HR managers, and their insurance company.
I personally saw Dr. Skoegerson for a surgery and some tests, and never had a problem. My experience with him was favorable.
However, I didn't think to research his background prior to our surgery, and the government allows only so much information to be included, that I would not be able to decide without more information.
If you had the choice between a doctor with a spotless record, which I believes still means nothing as you don't know why it's spotless, they could have used Windex, or a doctor with a background which offers a negative showing, you would likely believe in the doctor without a blemish.
You deserve the choice, but here's the problem with that: I frankly don't know if doctor do nothing wrong's time will shortly come and it will be me. And government websites are as dangerous a place to judge as they offer only what scant information is possible.
I don't trust these government agencies or websites and know nothing more of Dr. Skoegerson than my personal, short term, experience which went well. That's not up on the government site...why not? That's a question for these oversight agencies to answer: why aren't patients part of the the "healthcare democracy?"
Why don't we write records of our visits? Or are even required to do so? Well, the American Medical Association protects its doctors and they don't even like the current government program where certain "spies" call primary care offices to find out if they are offering enough care to the community, along with issues about sliding scale and insurance. Oh my, terrible stuff protecting the patients too...
Expand patients rights and conquer the problem.
The question remains why Betagroup has allowed positions to be filled by uncertain professionals, and we are only finding out about it now after years of employment.
How we obtain our care should be done with care, and we should be allowed to know, but know more, so we can make a decision as denying patients this information is borderline criminal.
Would I have had Dr. Skoegerson do my surgery again knowing what I know now? Very possibly as I don't trust how the government is protecting us with scant information, when Dr. Skoegerson should be able to at least respond publicly to his records.
Why have more liability KVHD?
This kind of logic defies sense, considering the long list of cases hanging over the healthcare district, which may include paying off Dr. Skoegerson. Many can be seen on the Kern County Superior court site. Simply click on civil or criminal, and put in Kern Valley Healthcare District, and see what you find.
How can they afford this?
Someone asked me about Kern Valley Healthcare District Surgeon, Dr. Kent Skoegerson; I was asked for details as to what a Google search unearthed recently.
First, in cases where doctors or healthcare personnel lose their licenses, there are rarely details to share for those of us surfing the government sites.
But, I clarified to this person that Dr. Skoegerson has nothing to do with the point of my post. So, I obviously didn't clear the message.
I have seen, and many of these documents are posted on this blog, resumes and credentials that don't add up to either reality, or there are even truly misleading and in one certain case completely obvious, that these people are not what their handy stories actually say.
Why have so many slipped through the cracks in HR, or Human Remorse Department?
The process of hiring is different depending on the level of the position you are fishing for. How could a CEO come in with a diploma mill resume? How can a CFO say he has the experience in certain areas and then never complete them? Are all the positions filled with a cursory look?
Then you have the board of directors selecting the administration which would qualify as either another set of eyes or possibly total reliance on the HR department. And even possibly collusion as the employment ends with a vote.
Regarding Dr. Kent Skoegerson
Dr. Skoegerson obviously had something go wrong, seriously so. But none of us, including me, were there or know what happened.
What we do know is that KVHD was desperate for a surgeon as they needed one to qualify as a full fledged hospital.
We also know that they were choosing from doctors who had liability problems. The hospital keeps liability insurance through Betagroup and this outfit decides whether a person in such an important position, (they are all important positions as healthcare requires a team effort, including the patients...for later) can be covered properly by their insurance.
A surgeon was turned away because of "liability" issues prior to the arrival of Dr. Skoegerson.
The question for Betagroup is what was so different in the two cases of the surgeons of the KRV? What sort of research is done, and do they automatically avoid errors say that happened in other states?
Who and what is the problem?
Dr. Skoegerson has done a small number of surgeries compared to other hospitals, but he has done this for almost six years.
Why now does the KVHD board believe he should be terminated from his contract?
Doctors are hard to find, so take any you can get past Betagroup's obviously stringent standards?
Again, the area I'm interested in is the hiring practices of the KVHD administration and board, their HR managers, and their insurance company.
I personally saw Dr. Skoegerson for a surgery and some tests, and never had a problem. My experience with him was favorable.
However, I didn't think to research his background prior to our surgery, and the government allows only so much information to be included, that I would not be able to decide without more information.
If you had the choice between a doctor with a spotless record, which I believes still means nothing as you don't know why it's spotless, they could have used Windex, or a doctor with a background which offers a negative showing, you would likely believe in the doctor without a blemish.
You deserve the choice, but here's the problem with that: I frankly don't know if doctor do nothing wrong's time will shortly come and it will be me. And government websites are as dangerous a place to judge as they offer only what scant information is possible.
I don't trust these government agencies or websites and know nothing more of Dr. Skoegerson than my personal, short term, experience which went well. That's not up on the government site...why not? That's a question for these oversight agencies to answer: why aren't patients part of the the "healthcare democracy?"
Why don't we write records of our visits? Or are even required to do so? Well, the American Medical Association protects its doctors and they don't even like the current government program where certain "spies" call primary care offices to find out if they are offering enough care to the community, along with issues about sliding scale and insurance. Oh my, terrible stuff protecting the patients too...
Expand patients rights and conquer the problem.
The question remains why Betagroup has allowed positions to be filled by uncertain professionals, and we are only finding out about it now after years of employment.
How we obtain our care should be done with care, and we should be allowed to know, but know more, so we can make a decision as denying patients this information is borderline criminal.
Would I have had Dr. Skoegerson do my surgery again knowing what I know now? Very possibly as I don't trust how the government is protecting us with scant information, when Dr. Skoegerson should be able to at least respond publicly to his records.
Why have more liability KVHD?
This kind of logic defies sense, considering the long list of cases hanging over the healthcare district, which may include paying off Dr. Skoegerson. Many can be seen on the Kern County Superior court site. Simply click on civil or criminal, and put in Kern Valley Healthcare District, and see what you find.
How can they afford this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)