(05-11-2020 01:31 PM)Dwight Wrote:  Bearcat, I have no argument with you about the right thing to do now. UT needs to unload the hospital. I also understand what you are saying about Carty Finkbeiner and our elected officials having their personal reasons for doing what they are doing. Nonetheless, the Chronicle article gives pause, I think, as to past decisions, even though it does not appear that anything illegal happened. Thanks, rocket 51, for posting the article.

Bearcat, you didn't answer the question that I asked. If the Ethics Commission affirmatively said that it was fine for Cavanaugh to vote on the affiliation agreement in 2015, I would love to know where to find that opinion. I went to the Ohio Ethics Commission website and searched "University of Toledo," but all of the opinions that came up were well before 2015. (I didn't find the 2017 opinion referenced in the article, either, so it would seem that there is something wrong with the way I am searching.)

Typically opinions for public ethical cases are done with an expectation of previous action congruence. This essentially means that if all things are equal for past iterations of the same action, the same ruling would persist. Seeing that all things were not equal, as he was not an employee of ProMedica, it is an assumed ruling, seeing as how the OEC ruled that Pisanelli could still conduct business pertaining to ProMedica given their similar business standings.

I completely agree that things need to be hashed out...but there is urgency the likes of which many voices don't quite understand when it comes to offloading the hospital now and the financial health of the University itself. I think the many rulings in the past would show that the OEC would rule the Cavanaugh votes to be ethical and use the Pisanelli ruling as a benchmark...now if there was actual proof of collusion, then you move right past ethical and straight to criminal for that individual. But the board is a rubber stamping authority, it's not who makes the initial plans, programs, and recommendations for budget.

(05-11-2020 01:29 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 12:42 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  .you're completely right about what you're saying. UTMC's survival is definitely not in the best interest of a competitor I'm not sure what's so earth-shattering about that...if it ends up becoming a ProMedica facility, they paid $250M over 5 years plus whatever their cash offering for the facility is. To me, that's well above market rate for that hospital.

What's earth-shattering is the news that UTMC was selling itself into oblivion with intent, presuming your information correct. If they were buying the hospital then wouldn't it be reasonable to presume they'll come under the same anti-trust action that just derailed their effort with St. Luke's?

Anti-Trust

I would think since McClaren purchased St. Lukes, the delineation of market share stipulation of the Anti-Trust ruling would be sufficiently addressed now that there are 3 health care providers in the area again. It is certainly something to consider, and something that will be looked over quite a bit...however, I don't think you'll see ProMedica as the only bidder, and with their current cash reserve issues, I don't know if they'd even be able to act on their right of first refusal if they aren't the top bidder.

(05-11-2020 01:22 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 12:42 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 12:35 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  As an outsider who is not one "who are intimately aware of many goings on with the University through their years of employment, service, or professional connections."

I didn't take anything in UTerry's post as stating fact. To me it was clearly laid out as conjecture/rumor.

Your statement that he then approach on this board those aware people by
"Simply ask questions," is kind of accomplishing exactly what you accuse him of unless someone were to presuppose those people would lie about any potentialy damaging information, if it existed and was in their knowledge base.

"framing lies as truths " at no point did he state he had personal knowledge. The writing was clunky, any evil intent not clear, on that I would agree.

Yeah, message boards can be damaging. I mean, just look at the actual facts that have been exposed as result of his post.

When the merger was announced, my presumption was that 50 million was going into MCO, not Promedica's planned highway overlook. Would you sell a car to someone with the condition that you're going to return the money to the car's new owner so they can buy some Au-inlay seat covers for their old car?

Combined with the information Dwight brought to the table, to me an outsider, This merger looks very damaging and shady and individually self-serving. It does not seem to me that UTMC's survival let alone prosperity is in ProMed's best economic interest. Their interest is best served if it dies on the vine to be replaced by ProMed's services.

What do you mean by MCO?

That pretty little campus being discussed and the programs housed THERE, is what I refer to by MCO.

You do know that this is specifically pertaining to the hospital, and not the whole campus, correct? Honest question.

The money was earmarked for UT's College of Medicine, not the hospital itself.

(05-11-2020 01:50 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 01:29 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 12:42 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  .you're completely right about what you're saying. UTMC's survival is definitely not in the best interest of a competitor I'm not sure what's so earth-shattering about that...if it ends up becoming a ProMedica facility, they paid $250M over 5 years plus whatever their cash offering for the facility is. To me, that's well above market rate for that hospital.

What's earth-shattering is the news that UTMC was selling itself into oblivion with intent, presuming your information correct. If they were buying the hospital then wouldn't it be reasonable to presume they'll come under the same anti-trust action that just derailed their effort with St. Luke's?

Anti-Trust

I would think since McClaren purchased St. Lukes, the delineation of market share stipulation of the Anti-Trust ruling would be sufficiently addressed now that there are 3 health care providers in the area again. It is certainly something to consider, and something that will be looked over quite a bit...however, I don't think you'll see ProMedica as the only bidder, and with their current cash reserve issues, I don't know if they'd even be able to act on their right of first refusal if they aren't the top bidder.

Bidder? According to you they already bought, for $250 million. Would you pick an argument and stick with it, lol. Some of us aren't as versed in all this.

(05-11-2020 01:58 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Bidder? According to you they already bought, for $250 million. Would you pick an argument and stick with it, lol. Some of us aren't as versed in all this.

Please note, this was the line you mentioned:

Quote:if it ends up becoming a ProMedica facility, they paid $250M over 5 years plus whatever their cash offering for the facility is. To me, that's well above market rate for that hospital.

I was saying that, as a hypothetical, if ProMedica ended up with the facility, that would be what they paid for it. If they spent $250M just to take over the resident medical programs that they did, it is likely still a good investment for them even if they don't get the entire facility.

Boy looks like you guys have been busy and having some fun!! The article in the Chronicle although interesting reading is also full of speculations and assumptions, and frankly a certain about of intended public smearing of two board members-clearly the aim of those locally who were interviewed or provided information to the author of the story. UT already announced last month they requested the state undertake a complete independent audit of UTMC- before public cries by Carty's group and state legislators demanding one- plus as to claims of ethics violations, anyone at anytime can request investigation of public employees by the Ohio Ethics Commission, yet at time of agreement or since there has been none conducted, likely because such claims are invalid to begin with. I am not sure votes done by board members who were not employed by ProMedica or at time having direct business connections at the time of the votes are in violation of state ethics laws and I suspect those making the claims are well aware of that, but are looking to sling some mud at them. Agreement with ProMedica was approved by entire board, not just two, and approved by the State, so besides spreading false rumors and accusations in the community (I have had two people not associated with UT ask me about this story in recent days), I doubt it results in invalidation of the agreement or halts the path UT is on to sell or find partner to take over UTMC. Too much of UT future budget concerns is tied to the hospital and there is no other solution but to divest themselves of it. That train has left the station and nothing Cary or others can do to stop it. Any deal involving UTMC will still require approve by the state, so that is likely next step in this effort to derail it, and failing that I would expect legal action to block state approval of the sale.