A County Hospital – But At What Cost?
HCHD Votes for New Hospital Operator for Crockett Medical Center
By Greg Ritchie
Messenger Reporter
HOUSTON COUNTY – After a lengthy and heated discussion, the Houston County Hospital Board (HCHD) voted 4-3 in favor of a lease agreement with a new operator for Crockett Medical Center at a meeting Thursday, April 13. HCHD, however, was not prepared to release the name of the new operator as of press time as the agreement is still pending.
The Houston County Hospital District met for a scheduled meeting Thursday, April 13 after announcing and cancelling a meeting set for Good Friday to discuss a pending agreement with a new hospital operator for the county.
The agenda for the meeting included public comments before the board retired into executive session to discuss the pending negotiations. During the public comments, several residents expressed the need for a functioning hospital in the county, both for the wellbeing of the county, local treatment for emergencies and for economic health, too.
Last summer, the current hospital operator, Kelly Tjelmeland, sent HCHD a letter expressing his intent to continue his agreement for another five years. During the waning months of 2022, Tjelmeland expressed his wish to terminate the contract. As The Messenger reported at that time, there was much concern by Crockett Medical Center (CMC) employees about the future of our local hospital and for their own jobs.
The crisis seemed to have been averted when the parties concluded an agreement which causedsurprise among many when HCHD began negotiating with other parties to take over the contract from Tjelmeland.
The debate over the hospital is a fundamental one, which is why The Messenger urges residents to get involved and vote in the May 6 election for two of the open, contested positions. The Messenger and Crockett Area Chamber of Commerce will hold a candidate forum where the candidates will put forward their various platforms Tuesday, April 26 at 6 p.m. at the Crockett Civic Center.
On the one hand is the notion that the county should establish a more modest, emergency center where patients can be stabilized before moving them on to other areas. Proponents of this plan argue many people go out of county for many procedures anyway and this would reduce the cost to taxpayers. Even adding one bed to such a facility would add costs such as food preparing and other needs to take care of patients who would stay for more than a few hours.
The other side argues the county would fall into decline without a thriving hospital. Education is one of the most important issues to the county and local school superintendents might be hard-pressed to recruit educators and administrators from other areas if the county lost its hospital.
Many local realtors say retirees and others might opt to buy houses and properties elsewhere if Houston County did offer a local hospital. Businesspeople thinking of opening a new business might see the lack of a hospital as a sign of decline and decided to take their investments – and potential jobs – to other parts of the state.
While no one enjoys paying taxes, most agree some things are fundamental such as schools, roads – and for many – a local hospital.
Once the board members returned from executive session, HCHD President Barbara Crowson reopened the meeting and asked for a motion to approve the amended lease and indigent care agreement and to approve signing documents stemming from the same.
Board member Roy Langford made the motion and it was seconded by Pam Ainsworth. The motion was opened for discussion and Dina Pipes said she did not understand why the board was “rushing the issue.”
“I have a lot of concerns about what we’re about to do here. This agreement isn’t finalized and the board is not able to vote on it,” Pipes said. “We have agreed in this agreement to give the new operators a lot more money and we are allowing them to get more money whenever they ask for it during the year.”
“This is rushed, incomplete and there’s no reason to do this,” Pipes went on. “We must have time to check this out. We need to do due diligence. In case you don’t remember, since 2015, we’ve had four different operators in this hospital. That’s eight years – not very good track record.”
Board member Rhonda Brown continued, saying, “Never will your taxes be reduced if we go with this company. Dr. Tjelmeland might get his cake and eat it, too, because he will get paid and get out of this agreement. He has a five year lease on this place right now. And we have no reason to jump into this and make a rash decision tonight.”
Carol Dawson fired back saying there is a cap on the hospital tax rate of 15 cents. The current tax rate is 13 cents.
“We have to vote,” Dawson said. “We have to pay. It takes money. So no, the hospital board will not lower taxes. Do we want low taxes or do we want a hospital?”
There were petitions from some in the audience to ask questions, which sparked a further debate among the board members. When Crowson called for a vote, Dr. John Stovall appeared to be in poor health, originally seeming to vote “no,” but after hearing an explanation from a family member sent to help him, Stovall abstained.
The vote finally totaled 4-3 in favor of the new agreement.
Questions, however, remain. HCHD was not prepared to release the name of the new operator, although The Messenger has learned representatives of the company have already visited CMC. There was no information on what the new operator might pay or require to cover indigent care. Sources told The Messenger this information was not provided to board members in executive session, either.
The fundamental questions for voters regarding the new lease are many. Who is the new operator? Why were they chosen over other options? Were there other options and what were they? What services would the new provider continue, add or delete to the operations at CMC? What new or different obligations would there be compared to the existing contract? Why not hold the current operator to his agreement until a full search can be undertaken in a more public way?
There may be very simple answers to these questions but no answers were available as of press time. HCHD has been criticized in the past for a lack of transparency and such a vote, seemingly without more public information or public hearings could give those arguments weight.
As board member Dawson rightly said, if the people of Houston County want a hospital, we must pay for it. Too many rural areas in Texas are slowly fading away due to many factors including the lack of local healthcare. But at what cost?
The Messenger will continue to update this story as new information becomes available.
Greg Ritchie can be reached at [email protected]
