A time of reckoning at Sharon Hospital
It was with great dismay that I read on your Sept. 14 front page that Sharon Hospital requested an extension to challenge the CT Office of Health Strategy’s proposed final rule to deny closure of the maternity unit.
Instead of wasting more time and money on a strategy to boost corporate revenue by cutting services in our community, Nuvance has a chance to embrace its responsibility, as Sen. Richard Blumenthal has said, “as a health care institution responsible for the stewardship of healthcare in our area.” Now is the time for Nuvance and the Sharon Hospital Board to work with stakeholders in our community, including the Foundation for Community Health and elected officials, to find solutions to the financial difficulties facing Sharon Hospital.
Having a full-service hospital means more to our community than a stated $3 million loss from maternity means to a multi-hospital corporate chain that reported $2.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2022.
One option would be for Sharon Hospital to pursue the federal designation of a Critical Access Hospital (CAH). This provides enormous financial benefits to small rural hospitals through enhanced federal reimbursements. Under this program, the federal government would basically reimburse hospital inpatients and outpatients using cost- based reimbursement, on a per-diem basis, at 101% of reasonable costs less deductibles and coinsurance and at 115% for professional services — thus, applicable overhead would be covered, effectively improving Sharon’s profitability. It may also be more lucrative for Nuvance to advertise maternity services here to increase deliveries and to bring back the $5-10 million in procedures, laboratory and radiology services it transferred out of Sharon to other Nuvance hospitals. This would be better for Sharon Hospital’s bottom line and our community’s health.
The CAH does have some rules, the main one being that a hospital limit its inpatient capacity to 25 medical-surgical beds and 10 psychiatric beds. Even though Sharon Hospital is considered a 78-bed facility, its census averages 15 medical-surgical patients daily and 10-12 psychiatric patients, according to Sharon Hospital President Christina McCulloch.
Fairview Hospital in Great Barrington has Critical Access Hospital status. It reports an operating surplus annually even though it delivers fewer babies than Sharon. It is a money-maker for its owner, the Berkshire Medical Center.
Indeed, BMC is turning its North Adams Hospital into a Critical Access Hospital. Couldn’t Nuvance do the same?
Critical Access Hospital status is not the only possibility to improve the financial performance of Sharon Hospital. There are many individuals and groups in this community who are willing to step up to address the rural health care crisis.
Perhaps a public forum can be arranged to begin a dialogue.
The American Hospital Association reported in September 2022 that 136 rural hospitals closed between 2010-2021. Without some soul searching and hard work by stakeholders in our community, Sharon Hospital may join that sorry list. We must maintain a full-service community hospital with a tradition of excellence, as it has been since 1909. Are we up to the challenge?
Dr. David Kurish
Sharon
Saving the maternity unit
Why is there no celebration of the fact we have fought and won for the maternity unit to stay open!
Where are the supporters, where is Nuvance, where are the volunteers, where is Save Sharon Hospital, and the Community Foundations!
This unit needs all of our help to find the best team and the best outcome!
To make this dream come true we have to find the best team, and support that team until the unit is fully functional and independent, and solvent,
Time to put your money and connections to work.
Make this the best maternity unit in the country!! And have it be an example of how to keep our hospitals functioning.
If we do not do all in our powers to help Dr. Mortman and Women’s Health Connecticut accomplish this goal, we will not be able to have a future
Don’t let corporate medicine control the outcome.
Corinne Kalser MD
Lakeville
Supporting Stan Morby for Board of Education
Fellow Salisbury Residents,
Tuesday, November 7th is Election Day in our town and across the country. Several local municipal positions will be on the ballot. They deserve our attention and interest.
Stan Morby is endorsed by the Salisbury Republican Town Committee for a position on the Salisbury Board of Education. His name will appear along with other Republican candidates on the ballot.
Some of you may already know Stan and his family. His wife, Larissa, has been a reading specialist at Salisbury Central School for the past eleven years. Their daughter, a happy second grader, attends SCS as well. Both Stan and his wife are active in various school organizations…PTO, Extras, and SOAR in particular. They are a close-knit family familiar with the tradition of giving back to their community.
Recently, Stan and I discussed his vision for the Board of Education. My questions was, “What do you hope to bring to your position on the School Board when elected in November?” His response was straightforward and direct, “I want to listen and learn from all sides. Remembering to put the needs of the children first will always be on my mind.”
With a child of his own just beginning her years at Region One, Stan has a unique perspective as a current parent. He understands the concerns of other parents and can relate to the challenges all families experience.
Come meet Stan Morby and other candidates on the November ballot at the Salisbury Republican Town Committee event planned for Sunday, Oct. 15 from 2 to 5 p.m. at the Town Grove. We will be honoring our First Responders — SVAS, Lakeville Hose Company, and our Resident State Trooper. Free refreshments will be provided by Pizzeria Marzano of Torrington. A fun raffle will be happening as well. Raffle tickets can be purchased by cash or check only on the day of the event! We invite everyone to come and celebrate what makes Salisbury great…its people!
You can bet Stan Morby is very motivated to make sure our schools are the best they can be. Stan is prepared to serve with everything he’s got to give! I feel most comfortable writing on his behalf and hope that you will support him with your vote as I will.
Harriet Weiss
Salisbury
Truth in journalism? Sometimes
The Salisbury Forum will host a discussion on “Truth in Journalism” at the Sharon Playhouse on Oct. 4.
The first requirement of truth in journalism should be to fully and accurately report all relevant news without fear or favor. If you downplay, exaggerate or spike stories, if you leave out important details or names to further an agenda or to shield someone, that’s not truthful journalism.
In that regard, I again write to The Lakeville Journal in hopes that your paper will finally publish for your readers the fact that the recent lawsuit against the Holley Block affordable housing project cost the town of Salisbury about $40,000.
That costly, baseless, time-wasting lawsuit was brought by residents Joseph Schaefer, Celeste Shannon and William Muecke, and was dismissed by a judge earlier this year for lack of merit.
The Journal never reported the cost of this suit, a figure of obvious interest and importance to everyone, especially taxpayers.
Instead, your paper merely quoted a local official who said that defending against the suit had cost the town “quite a bit.”
I wrote a letter to the Journal at the time asking why the cost was not published. My letter was printed but not the cost. The Journal, as was its habit, also neglected to name all the plaintiffs who had brought that frivolous lawsuit.
Weeks later, when the date for appealing the dismissal had passed, thus officially ending the lawsuit to the great relief of town officials, the Journal did not report this significant development at all, let alone the cost or the plaintiff names.
Another newspaper did report all the facts — including the cost and names.
Over the summer, I sent several more letters to The Lakeville Journal trying to get the $40,000 figure printed for the record in the hometown paper.
But the Journal’s editor-in-chief, John Coston, who is one of the panelists in the upcoming “Truth in Journalism” discussion, rejected every letter I sent on one shifting pretense after another.
First, he repeatedly insisted that letters could only be published after telephone verification, even after I asked several times for mine to be verified by email due to hearing difficulty on the phone. (Apparently the Journal doesn’t accommodate disabilities.)
Next, he claimed lack of space to run any letter, even though each of them was well within the paper’s length guidelines. I even shortened them, but to no avail.
Finally, the Journal’s publisher and CEO Susan Hassler told me that it was their prerogative to print or not print whatever they chose.
I don’t know why The Lakeville Journal repeatedly refused to inform the public of such obviously important information as the cost of town litigation, or why the paper’s coverage so often kept the plaintiffs’ names under wraps.
But I would suggest that editor-in-chief Coston is not a good choice for a discussion on full and fair reporting — unless he’s up there to show what not to do.
Mark Godburn
Norfolk
