So Valenti is Doing a Super Job Right?
According to an article in the El Paso Times by Diana Washington-Valdez, University Medical Center (UMC) is getting slapped with a fine.
That has an impact on the tax payer no matter how this tries to get spun.
The fines are from penalties the feds are whacking UMC with because of health problems people acquired while they were hospitalized for something else if I understand correctly.
That means that is such a problem at UMC that it rises to the level of getting punished for it.
UMC's side of the story, and it has some merit, is the fact that we are under-insured and under-cared for so when we go to UMC, we are therefore more likely to get something else. That makes sense and is basically reasonable.
But it doesn't explain away the issue entirely. Look, no matter how this tries to get shaped, UMC scored the worst possible score for "hospital-acquired conditions". UMC earned a 10, with 10 being the worst possible score you can possibly achieve.
Interestingly Valenti is keeping a low profile and isn't quoted in the piece, which shows that UMC is learning from their previous press coverage. But it certainly re-focuses us all on that bonus. I mean I don't know how anyone can think being slapped with a penalty could be put in the good category.
I'll close with this, Javier Gonzalez was quoted in the article as saying, "We will continue to deliver unparalleled care and remarkable patient outcomes." He's the quality control guy for UMC.
I have to say Mr. Gonzalez, you hit the nail on the head.
Scoring the worst score possible is pretty unparalleled and remarkable.
That has an impact on the tax payer no matter how this tries to get spun.
The fines are from penalties the feds are whacking UMC with because of health problems people acquired while they were hospitalized for something else if I understand correctly.
That means that is such a problem at UMC that it rises to the level of getting punished for it.
UMC's side of the story, and it has some merit, is the fact that we are under-insured and under-cared for so when we go to UMC, we are therefore more likely to get something else. That makes sense and is basically reasonable.
But it doesn't explain away the issue entirely. Look, no matter how this tries to get shaped, UMC scored the worst possible score for "hospital-acquired conditions". UMC earned a 10, with 10 being the worst possible score you can possibly achieve.
Interestingly Valenti is keeping a low profile and isn't quoted in the piece, which shows that UMC is learning from their previous press coverage. But it certainly re-focuses us all on that bonus. I mean I don't know how anyone can think being slapped with a penalty could be put in the good category.
I'll close with this, Javier Gonzalez was quoted in the article as saying, "We will continue to deliver unparalleled care and remarkable patient outcomes." He's the quality control guy for UMC.
I have to say Mr. Gonzalez, you hit the nail on the head.
Scoring the worst score possible is pretty unparalleled and remarkable.
Comments
Post a Comment
We encourage constructive community dialogue, debate, and conversation - but we reserve the right to refuse to publish a comment or delete a comment if we feel like it. Be a respectful adult. Use common sense.