FFH exec session derailed; board holds open debate

A debate, which would have normally taken place behind closed doors at a special meeting between the Franklin Foundation Hospital Board and the FFH medical staff, was opened to the public Wednesday after a majority vote decided to not go into executive session.
The meeting was held to decide the fate of the medical staff’s by-laws which have been hotly debated for over a year. Despite FFH Chief Executive Officer Craig Cudworth’s recommendation, the board voted to allow members of the public and the press to remain in the room to hear the debate.
FFH Commissioner Allan Von Werder made the motion to keep the session open. Commissioner Didi Battle and Bobby Judice voted in favor. Commissioners Clegg Caffery and Dr. Nick Accardo voted against the motion. Commissioner Roland Degeyter was absent when the vote was taken but arrived after. FFH Board Chairman Eugene Foulcard also voted in favor of an open session.
The debate centered around two primary issues with the medical staff by-laws. The first was whether affiliate personnel would be allowed voting rights within the FFH committees they serve. The second concerned medical staff overview of quality assurance in FFH associated clinics.
Affiliate personnel are those that are independent contractors who have an arrangement with hospitals such as FFH. Each hospital has its own set of rules, policies and guidelines that dictate how doctors are allowed to treat and admit patients.
When asked, after the meeting, to clarify details about the issue with affiliate personnel, Cudworth was uncooperative and refused to elaborate, saying, “It was an open meeting.”
Cudworth did say, during the meeting, the recommendation that affiliate staff not have voting rights came from a legal analysis as well as from Quorum Health Resources, the hospital’s management firm.
During the course of the meeting, most of the medical staff members in attendance and FFH staff members were steadfast in their desire for affiliate staff to have voting rights. Several FFH board members were in favor of denying voting rights to affiliates.
Arguments put forth by medical staff members and FFH staff members in favor of voting rights included the fact that affiliates serve on FFH committees and therefore are invested in the facility’s well-being and should be allowed to vote on hospital affairs.
Dr. Randall Horton, who has practiced medicine in the community for three decades, said that committee members should have voting rights due to their long commitment to the hospital and its patients.
“We have a small medical staff and probably a majority of us are affiliate staff,” Horton said. “We all serve on committees and we are all dedicated to the health of the hospital. We use the hospital every day for our patients. We are an active part of the medical staff. If we don’t get to vote, you are going to have a very limited staff to serve on committees. We do this for no pay. And we are happy to do this. If you say all of a sudden, ‘sorry guys you can’t vote.’ You are going to have problems filling committees and doing the work that needs to be done.”
Arguments put forth by several FFH board members against voting rights included whether affiliates were aware enough of hospital policies and procedures to weigh in on matters concerning the facility. Cudworth and Commissioner Dr. Nick Accardo raised the question as to whether physicians who don’t work at the hospital should have decision-making power regarding the privileges of those physicians who do work at FFH.
“I, for one, don’t think they should,” Accardo said. “I think the hospital is best represented by medical staff members who can vote and who practice and treat patients at the hospital. Simply because they are going to be aware of the hospital’s rules, regulations and policies and procedures and I think that will result in a higher quality of care.”
There were several voices of disagreement from members of the medical staff in attendance. Dr. Stephen McPherson expressed the opinion that, in order to encourage participation in hospital affairs, affiliates needed to continue to have the right to vote.
“In all the time that I’ve been here, we’ve always tried to be as inclusive as possible,” McPherson said. “We’ve gone to great lengths to try and encourage people to participate on committees. We’ve given these people the right to vote because, what’s the point of being on a committee if you can’t be an active member? We are a small hospital. We need as much input as we can from everyone we can get it from. This is a community hospital. It’s not a private entity. This is a public hospital. These are community docs supporting a community hospital and I think it would be a big mistake to carve them out.”
St. Mary Parish President David Hanagriff, who is a non-voting member of the FFH board and who was in attendance yesterday, said he was hopeful the matters concerning the medical staff by-laws would soon be resolved.
“The two issues that were brought up tonight are regulatory issues and I believe the medical staff will approve them because they want to be in compliance,” Hanagriff said. “One of the major issues brought up was whether affiliate doctors should have voting rights on the committees. These are local doctors that have served the community for a long time. They’ve always had voting rights and they should continue to have voting rights. We should be building a coalition and a better relationship with local doctors to make sure they participate and support the hospital and by taking away their voting rights, are we trying to bring these two sides together? No. So let’s keep things like they are. Let’s try to encourage more participation between the medical staff and the board and try to unite them and bring them together which would ultimately be good for the hospital.”
The matter of the by-laws, including recommendations from the FFH board, will go back to the medical staff for approval and then back to the hospital board for final approval.