Tufts, Question 5 Discussed at Town Meeting- BWH Bulletin - For and about the People of Brigham and Women's Hospital
Tufts, Question 5 Discussed at Town Meeting- BWH Bulletin - For and about the People of Brigham and Women's Hospital
Skip to contents
November 17, 2000
Browse the archive
Current issue
In This Issue:
New Buildings part of plan to meet space challenges
Tufts, Question 5 Discussed at Town Meeting
Friends Announce New Board of Directors
Bright Horizons is Open
Cotran Memorial Service
JCAHO Fair
Another Commuter Option: Vanpool
Gift Shop Employee Appreciation Days
Mother's Day Compensation
Bretholtz Center to open late November
Are you ready for JCAHO?
Highly-publicized events such as the Tufts negotiation and the failure of Question 5 to pass in the election were two of the many issues discussed at last Wednesday’s Town Meeting. BWH President Jeffrey Otten, Chief Medical Officer Anthony Whittemore, MD, and Chief Operating Officer Matthew Van Vranken shared the stage with moderator Cheryl Locke, Vice-President of Human Resources as the audience of employees, staff and volunteers asked questions. Otten began the meeting with praise for all of the hospital’s recent accomplishments and its goals for the future. The following are excerpts from the question-and-answer session that followed: Q:
Would you discuss your impression of Question 5, and why it didn’t pass during the election?
A (JO): Question 5 arose out of the frustration people have with the health care system. We’re at the gateway of a golden age in medicine, and yet our Emergency Department is overcrowded and infant mortality rates are starting to creep back up. Universal access is very important to people. I’m pleased that it didn’t pass because I think it would’ve thrown the state into regulatory chaos. But we need to keep on our political leaders and make sure that they address the issues and the principles that were in that initiative. If we had universal health care coverage for all of our citizens, we wouldn’t have an emergency room crisis because people would be going to their primary care physician. We need your help to let the politicians understand that this health care problem isn’t going away. It’s got to be addressed in the next couple of years, or we’re going to see a very significant problem here and elsewhere. Q:
Why did Partners come so close to breaking off its contract with Tufts, and what does the agreement mean for us in terms of revenue?
A (AW): We are chartered as a non-profit organization, and we are living up to that promise on a daily basis. In addition, none of us are here to waste a great deal of time negotiating contracts, let alone denying patients care. That’s not our mission. We had to make a stand with Tufts, and it was uncomfortable. We mailed out thousands of letters to our patients and our referring physicians regretting the necessity for it and hoping they would understand; and from our surveys, they did. As unsettling as it was, they understood. Tufts came through at the last minute and agreed to reimburse us adequately, so we will in fact recover our expenses. This is a very healthy turn of events. A (MVV): In 1999, we lost $40 million from BCBS, HPHC and Tufts. When people describe Partners, it’s important to remember that it’s a three-pronged organization: a clinical, an academic and a research enterprise. A lot of the income that was quoted in the media was dollars generated from funds in the research enterprise, that can’t be used for clinical purposes. It’s important when you realize that income isn’t going to be used to build new buildings, to support new programs, to deal with the issues that we have in terms of inflation in pharmaceuticals. A (JO): Back in 1994, Tufts excluded BWH from its network. They told us that they had MGH and BI and they didn’t need us. It was only after we founded Partners that we finally got in the Tufts network, and that was not until 1995. Q:
Will you give us a response of the value of the BWH Physicians Organization (BPO), and how will the BWPO look and feel to the people on the Pike?
A (AW): The answer to the last question is that it will play itself out, but I honestly don’t think you’re going to feel it. In an ideal world, this would be seamless with respect to most employees and patients. It will not be seamless to physicians—it’s going to feel very different. The reason for the BWPO is really couched in a legal construct. There are some benefits that will spin off from that, but it will basically allow us to exist in a legally protected environment so we can collectively negotiate with third-party payers. There’s a tremendous amount of spin off, though the original lever was economic. The chiefs have been working for about four years to bring the PO to fruition, and it has been a very difficult process, but I feel very strongly that they have been successful. There will be some bumps along the road, but we will be able to wrestle with all of those with the talent we have here at BWH. Look for more questions and answers from Town Meeting in next week’s Bulletin.