There are two extremes in ‘business deal’ personalities. There is the ‘gambler’ at one end and the ‘chess player’ at the other. Each encompasses their own skill set and behavioral styles. The gambler in the most basic form is pragmatic but will play the odds in hopes of gaining an advantage. The chess player is analytical, calculating the possibilities for failure. The spectrum between used with flexibility, and applied judicially, can be very effective in achieving business objectives.
It’s difficult to evaluate the method a business player favors as an observer unless you’ve played the game with them within some position. HUMC’s reputation and recent political revelations has implied a gambling bully type approach, a sort of shock and awe process, seeking to portray a rapid perception of dominance. It includes a degree of hubris posturing in presuming an edge.
HUMC’s prior CEO played that part well. He provided an imposing presence with the knowledge of knowing certain connected people that he could call upon for assistance. That’s a potent position in a high stakes business venture, until your approach is recognized. After that you’d better be a skilled chess player who has a fall back plan. Otherwise you’re simply going to make the legal participants wealthier, with no assurance of success, should you have a formidable opponent.
Municipal governments are governed by local individuals from all walks of life. These are elected people who range from being very successful in their own right to simple political players. (The political players usually believe they’re owed something extra for their service. It’s that arrogance with which they’ll justify putting their hand in a public cookie jar.) The combined knowledge of successful people and political players tends to dilute effective business sense. It often results in decisions like the Encap redevelopment debacle or fathom revenue schemes like borrowing against set asides for future liabilities.
In the case of a reopened hospital, the ‘business leadership’ within Westwood’s governing body was comforted by the glow of HUMC’s former CEO. Anybody who had attended the HUMC presentation of hope at the local Community Center saw a CEO who oozed confidence. Unfortunately the strong presentation was built on veiled qualifiers. Many walked away comforted, which is normal in a spirited production of optimism. It was like attending a vacation time-share seminar.
YOU HAVE TO BE A PLAYER AT THE TABLE TO WIN
The Westwood officials are gambling on hope. They believe in HUMC and politics. It’s the reasonable thinking of convenience when you’re void of appreciation to the possibilities. They are discounting the opposition. While Englewood Hospital may be a wannabe to HUMC, it has some seasoned political clout. The Valley Hospital organization is a formidable player in their own right.
If the Certificate of Need is allowed to remain extinguished, the new Governor will have his hands tied in offering any immediate assistance. The opposition will have the nuances of law on its side and obstacles to a new hospital will be more complex. This is not to say a hospital would never return, just that the odds wouldn’t be in favor to the residents of the Pascack and Northern Valleys.
The lack of an intervention by the Commissioner on the CN expiration was in itself a decision. It deserves to be appealed―Not only by HUMC―but by the municipality on behalf of the people’s needs. There is a demonstrable need and numerous reasons to justify an appeal by the municipality. For example:
- The economic environment overall, and the legal delay tactics of the opposition, undermined any potential to utilize the CN within 2 years. A CN extension that was initially requested by the municipality.
- There does exist a real application to reopen a hospital.
- Extenuating circumstances, defined by some as the “great recession,” contributed to tighter funding considerations that required prudent review.
- The acknowledged strain on the assets of many volunteer ambulance corps’ and expanded risks to their patients.
- The demographics support a smaller reopened hospital.
- Englewood hospital has not shown any ability to turn a closed hospital into meaningful profits.
- Valley Hospital’s current resources are being besieged by an expanded market to the detriment of patients.
- The taxpaying residents of New Jersey’s northeast corner are entitled to the same consideration as the residents in Passaic. Not with the financial support rendered to bankrupt St. Mary’s due to public need, but in regards to medical trauma access needs.
If the Certificate of Need is reopened for consideration after an appeal, for a second hearing by the State’s Health Planning Board, the odds increase in the favor of the people. Caring about a constituency means every opportunity should be exhausted until there are no options. This is a quality of life issue in real terms. Putting our medical access needs in the hands of others is just an attempt to transfer responsibility. This concern needs more than words, rallies and marches―it needs clear accountable actions.
Since your town isn’t doing anything it makes me wonder why our Mayor and Council don’t do something. I think Mayor Blundo understands our needs. Why doesn’t River Vale appeal? We’re more worst off then Westwood. If we’re going to maintain that small town feel we need to maintain our local hospital.
Comment by May187 — January 8, 2010 @ 12:44 PM
What game are they playing? Monopoly?
Comment by oneone — January 8, 2010 @ 4:55 PM
It’s a good idea to have more than one tack. Most M & As are complex and run into regular problems that need to be rethought. This hospital affair has shown its self to be convoluted. It certainly would be prudent to have a second tack in case Hackensack’s course encounters a setback.
Comment by Stockbroker — January 8, 2010 @ 7:47 PM
I’ve been reading your blog for the last year and you seem very preoccupied about this hospital. Maybe you should find another interest. I’m surprised and annoyed at your insinuation. I can’t imagine that our governing body is as disengaged as you imply.
Comment by Allison — January 8, 2010 @ 8:08 PM
This hospital fiasco is a free for all. If we get it back, it’ll be by accident.
Comment by Gibbs — January 11, 2010 @ 8:53 AM
Allison, I am a little preoccupied with the hospital’s future. I believe no stone should be left unturned to assist in returning a hospital to Westwood; and waiting on others is not an answer. The Westwood Mayor and Council have been vocal about their support too, but what has that accomplished. The 2-year extended CN expired, and a reopened hospital is still uncertain.
HUMC purchased the PVH site and advised the AG they were not reopening a hospital. They had represented—in writing—that they were not going to operate an acute care hospital on the site after closing on their purchase. Therefore you have to ask why the governing body accommodated them by easing up on the hospital site’s zoning ordinance language. After that accommodation, what has been done to assure a hospital might be reopened, besides words, rallies and a march?
We may still see a hospital; it makes a logical business extension to HUMC’s future growth. But it is that growth that is the underlying driver to the opposition’s concern. It is a conflict of competitive objectives, an evolving health care market and a DOH uncertain how to balance a troubling report on hospital rationalization, which collectively have placed a hospital reopening on thin ice.
Thinking ahead, while these factors play out, the governing body should have already, 60 days before the expiration, petitioned for an extension of the CN. It should have set the groundwork for an appeal, if it was to be necessary. The clash of external distractions should be second to medical care access for the Pascack and Northern Valley residents. And if there is more being done, then we shouldn’t have to imagine it.
Comment by riskaverse — January 11, 2010 @ 11:59 AM
Hedging a bet isn’t always the right strategy but by not betting on us, that’s no strategy. Why aren’t the Valley’s Mayors getting together and appealing this together?
Comment by kSteve — January 9, 2010 @ 10:51 AM
Too many people rely on politics to solve their problems. We’re becoming a nation of robots controlled by regulations. The federal government is desensitizing imagination and ambition. When something goes wrong you blame the system. Who will your local officials point the finger at when the hospital become a memory? Will it be the opposition? Will it be Hackensack hospital? Will it be the department of health, the governor? Who will WE blame should the hospital not return? I know, the rain. No, lets go Freudian and blame our unhappy childhoods. This shouldn’t even be a debate. We need our hospital.
Comment by boonsfarm — January 10, 2010 @ 2:13 PM
I’m not sure but we haven’t directly heard of any real efforts taken beyond talking between politicians. It’s nice that we all support a new hospital but is there really anything we’ve done that makes a hospital necessary. Is there anything anyone can do?
Comment by checker — January 10, 2010 @ 7:55 PM
Pray.
Comment by Bad Medicine — January 14, 2010 @ 1:02 PM
I commented a year ago that I thought we’d probably end up with a hospital but it wouldn’t be because we didn’t make mistakes. I was obviously letting my natural optimism get the best of me. Correct me if I’m wrong but has everything that’s been done by us been in reaction to someone else. So much for good old American initiative.
Comment by Austin — January 11, 2010 @ 4:48 PM