When is a contract not a contract?

Wednesday’s Hammond Star featured a guest commentary by Governor Jindal about the success of his privatization of the LSU Charity Health Care System.  However, what he failed to include in his commentary was the fact that so far the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have yet to approve his plan.   Since the Medicare and Medicaid monies are the major funding source for paying for this venture, one would have thought that Jindal would have consulted with CMS to verify its legality BEFORE implementing it. But true to form, Bobby’s intellectual arrogance took precedence over common sense and he decided to forgo CMS pre-approval.

Since the plan has been in operation for almost a year, and has yet to win CMS approval, I wonder how it is presenting being funded.  Maybe Bobby is just borrowing money from other state agencies in his usual smoke and mirrors fashion.

However, what is interesting is that the contracts to privately administer the charity hospitals in New Orleans, Lafayette, Bogalusa, Lake Charles, Shreveport and Monroe were all just revised to include the following clauses:

1)     The private operators of these hospitals now have the ability to cancel the contract at ANY time with a 60-day notice due to “inconvenience”

2)    The private operators have been allowed to reduce their obligations in providing “core” and “key” services to the poor and uninsured patients.

 

The terms “inconvenience”, and “core” and “key” services are certainly very ambiguous and dangerous  terminology to include in any contract.  They are very dependent upon each party’s interpretation.

So basically, if the private companies aren’t making ENOUGH profit they can just close down the hospital’s operation because it’s too “inconvenient” to continue to operate, and if they don’t feel like offering a particular needed medical service because someone lacks medical insurance, that’s also okay.

Sure glad I didn’t have that “inconvenient” clause in my recent house repair contract.  Maybe if the weather had gotten any hotter, my guy would have just left the job because it was too  “inconvenient.”

I also wonder if this present private sector contract really reflects the original intend of the charity hospital system, a health care safety net for the most in need.  

Please don’t misunderstand my point,  if Jindal wants to less burden the state financially and operate these hospitals in this way, so be it.  But don’t lie to the public by reporting to the media about, “more health care access, better quality of services, and lower health costs” being provided,  as compared to the old charity health care system , because the private administration of these hospitals is operating under a different set of rules and is completely different from what previously existed.

A comparison of the ‘old’ LSU Charity Hospital System to the present one is totally meaningless and only time will tell if better health care services will be provided coupled with health care cost savings.  That is, if Bobby finally gets CMS approval, and some of the privately administered hospitals don’t find it too “inconvenient” and cease providing any services at all.