The Observation Deck

The Achilles' Heel of the deal between city officials and The Clinic is laid bare in this video I produced this weekend. A most simple yet burning question is making residents give the deal a second thought. We need to repeal the deal and defeat the non-compete.

Kevin,

Welcome to the Deck.

Excellent video and narrative.

I love the "burning question"

If nobody wanted Lakewood Hospital, then why did CCF ask for and the City leaders give a non-compete to prevent those "nobodies" from buying or using it?

A related question is: If the hospital was so run down and antiquated, why is CCF so eager take all of this "old" medical equipment and contents to their other state of the art facilities?

HMMMMMM!

Indeed. The contradictions multiply the closer you look at it.

As the CCF expands and takes over other markets (in and/or out of Ohio), is it commonplace for them to include non-compete clauses in their business contracts?

If nobody wanted Lakewood Hospital, then why did CCF ask for and the City leaders give a non-compete to prevent those "nobodies" from buying or using it even though the City never advertised it for rent or sale?

Corey Rossen wrote:As the CCF expands and takes over other markets (in and/or out of Ohio), is it commonplace for them to include non-compete clauses in their business contracts?

The Clinic does want a monopoly in Lakewood.

However, Brunswick, Westlake, Avon and other communities have not granted the Clinic the monopoly that it seeks. Brunswick has Metro, University, the Clinic and numerous private practice competitors. Corey, if you lived in Avon and your Mayor and Council sought to close the Clinics two hospitals and remove Metro and University Hospitals to grant a monopoly to Mercy Medical Center would you think it a good idea?

The people of Lakewood are not just losing 1,500, jobs, millions in economic activity, access to health care, $33 million in Foundation money and $100 million+ in other assets we are going to be burdened with higher costs, less access and fewer choices.

One former Council person has stated that the Mayor hopes sometime in the future the Clinic will offer more services in Lakewood. With all do respect how can anyone believe that that will happen?

Bill Call wrote:

Corey Rossen wrote:As the CCF expands and takes over other markets (in and/or out of Ohio), is it commonplace for them to include non-compete clauses in their business contracts?

The Clinic does want a monopoly in Lakewood.

However, Brunswick, Westlake, Avon and other communities have not granted the Clinic the monopoly that it seeks. Brunswick has Metro, University, the Clinic and numerous private practice competitors. Corey, if you lived in Avon and your Mayor and Council sought to close the Clinics two hospitals and remove Metro and University Hospitals to grant a monopoly to Mercy Medical Center would you think it a good idea?

The people of Lakewood are not just losing 1,500, jobs, millions in economic activity, access to health care, $33 million in Foundation money and $100 million+ in other assets we are going to be burdened with higher costs, less access and fewer choices.

One former Council person has stated that the Mayor hopes sometime in the future the Clinic will offer more services in Lakewood. With all do respect how can anyone believe that that will happen?

I was curious as to whether this was standard practice in these types of business deals. I'm sure it is somewhat common in other industries. Even employees are given non-compete clauses.

Just wondering if it is worth the inquiry if this is common in the industry, or standard contracts for CCF. If it is, then it would be expected as it comes with the territory of doing business with the CCF, if it is not, it is worth the inquiry.

I am just as curious as others as to how this will all play out.

Corey Rossen wrote:

Bill Call wrote:I am just as curious as others as to how this will all play out.

Thanks for taking part in this discussion.

Try a little thought experiment. What it is that Lakewood gets for all that was given?

Bill Call wrote:

Corey Rossen wrote:

Bill Call wrote:I am just as curious as others as to how this will all play out.

Thanks for taking part in this discussion.

Try a little thought experiment. What it is that Lakewood gets for all that was given?

I do not know yet, part of what I am waiting to see play out.

Your turn:
What would have happened if the vote went the other way for the hospital? 5 years from now? 10 years from now?

Depends on what you are talking about when you say "the vote". The vote for mayor? The vote for issue 64?

The results of each part of the election would lead to different outcomes.

One thing's for sure, if 64 had passed, SLH wouldn't have to collect thousands of signatures right now.

Hey Kevin, great job on the video. I will pass it 'round.

cameron karslake wrote:Depends on what you are talking about when you say "the vote". The vote for mayor? The vote for issue 64?

The results of each part of the election would lead to different outcomes.

One thing's for sure, if 64 had passed, SLH wouldn't have to collect thousands of signatures right now.

Hey Kevin, great job on the video. I will pass it 'round.

Sorry, you're right.

What if the hospital remains/remained open? 5 years from now? 10 years from now?

$22M in rent and income taxes.
$55M in capital improvements to the hospital.
$250M in economic activity per year X11 $2.75 billion.
Hospital is rebuilt with $65M bond offering and CCF matches cash to debt per the contract.
CCF operates it in a profitable or break even manner so it avoids covering losses per the cash to debt ratio it is liable for.

Then we would be free of CCF's grip and we could market the relatively new hospital another hospital system that truly cares about us or CCF renews for second 30 year term to avoid losing its market share.

What's so difficult about honoring an agreement and having accountability?

Brian, Nice easy to understand breakdown of how to take the hospital we have and improve it. It's thinking like yours that actually BUILDS LAKEWOOD instead of what the contradictory named organization pretends to advance.

Corey wanted to know earlier if it is an industry standard to put non-competes in place. Good question, but regardless of the answer, why should we shrink to fit? True American Capitalism reins supreme over any localized non-compete. There are plenty of health care systems out there. A wise and prudent plan would take full advantage of our free and open market place. It's not like the NFL where there are a limited number of franchises. There were 3 offers made. Where was the competitive bidding? We are in the catbird seat and we yet city officials acted like we were being held hostage. Something is terribly, terribly wrong with this deal.

Brian Essi wrote:$22M in rent and income taxes.
$55M in capital improvements to the hospital.
$250M in economic activity per year X11 $2.75 billion.
Hospital is rebuilt with $65M bond offering and CCF matches cash to debt per the contract.
CCF operates it in a profitable or break even manner so it avoids covering losses per the cash to debt ratio it is liable for.

Then we would be free of CCF's grip and we could market the relatively new hospital another hospital system that truly cares about us or CCF renews for second 30 year term to avoid losing its market share.

What's so difficult about honoring an agreement and having accountability?

If I am to believe your numbers (and I do not know enough not to), and I am also to believe the other side's numbers (and I do not know enough not to) then I am at a stale mate. Or, I do not know enough to disregard one side or the other. This is why, and what, makes it hard to sift through. As I learned from my elders, the louder they speak does not necessarily mean they are correct.

One side says the business is failing and the other says it could thrive. Any way you look at it, I either trust you both, or have no trust in either, or you're both right or both wrong, or one more right than the other, or statistics are inaccurate, or...or...or...

The numbers you provide makes it look like a thriving business (or could be), yet the hospital leaders say it is not and failing fast. Too much confusion.

Kevin D Young wrote:Brian, Nice easy to understand breakdown of how to take the hospital we have and improve it. It's thinking like yours that actually BUILDS LAKEWOOD instead of what the contradictory named organization pretends to advance.

Corey wanted to know earlier if it is an industry standard to put non-competes in place. Good question, but regardless of the answer, why should we shrink to fit? True American Capitalism reins supreme over any localized non-compete. There are plenty of health care systems out there. A wise and prudent plan would take full advantage of our free and open market place. It's not like the NFL where there are a limited number of franchises. There were 3 offers made. Where was the competitive bidding? We are in the catbird seat and we yet city officials acted like we were being held hostage. Something is terribly, terribly wrong with this deal.

So it is common to have a non-compete? But it doesn't have to be in Lakewood's case? Not sure if I understand your answer.