News item today in Argus http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_13732528?source
Washington Hospital’s CEO gets a raise
By Matthew Artz
Oakland Tribune

There does not seem any restraint by the board of directors despite public outcry and publicity regarding Ms Farber’s salary raise

Please note that the salary raise is linked to performance which is linked again to patient revenue
The article mentioned that ” the revenue has increased though the number of patient days actually decreased

The audits chalk up the increased patient revenue primarily to “market-based price adjustments.” That means the hospital raised rates on insurers, which can lead to higher insurance premiums for residents.”
The question is did the revenue come also as result of denial of any needed health services to the district residents ?

That means the revenue growth came at expense of increased costs to TriCity residents part of the revenue was shared by the CEO.

“I think it’s disgraceful this has become an issue about Nancy Farber,” said board member and Fremont Bank Vice Chairman Mike Wallace. “If the newspaper has any (courage), you should attack the board members. I think you should attack me”
It is disgraceful that an elected official who to supposed to represent the interests of district residents personalizes the issue instead of addressing the criticism and implications of higher healthcare costs to the district residents.

The board of directors need to inform the public and disclose which bank handles payroll of 150 million in a year and functions as trustee for pension assets of the Washington hospital.
If Fremont Bank is involved, then Mr Wallace needs to abstain from all financial decisions of the district hospital including salary raise for Ms Farber

The issue of excessive salary for CEO of nonprofit corporation is a national issue
http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/1000429/hospital-ceo-pay-comes-under-scrutiny/
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has stepped up his criticism of not-for-profit hospitals by slamming what he regards as the high salaries paid to hospital CEOs. He told The Boston Globe that he is planning to introduce legislation to address the issue
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/03/04/nonprofit_hospitals_targeted_on_leader_pay/
Amendments F7 and F8 regarding executive compensation and governance at charitable organizations was proposed on October 1st this year ..
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2009/prg100109c.pdf

The role of salary consultants for hospital CEO is mentioned by Sen Grassley
“I think that the process is self-serving; it has a multiplier effect – the higher some consultant says [an executive] has got to be paid, the more he’s in demand,” Grassley said in an interview. “People ought to be paid for what they’re really doing.”

Who are the consultants hired by the Washington board who recommended salary increase ? I would like to investigate their track record.
http://blogs.healthleadersmedia.com/leadtime/2009/03/hospital-ceos-face-grassley/

http://www.projo.com/opinion/editorials/content/ED_george24_02-24-09_0NDBSBO_v64.400249e.html#slcgm_comments_anchor

Do you recongize any of these themes?

Why doesnt an op-ed such as this appear in Argus ?

Problem is – this is a bit of a shell game. Suppose the Hospital didn’t pass “FF” – suppose they had to pay for retrofits from (in part) their own revenues. Under that assumption – would there have been more or less in their remaining operating budget to pay salaries with ?

So, in a very real sense the availability of taxpayer revenue to fund hospital facilities leaves more in the operating budget for other costs (like salaries) – that is, unless you presume the hospital would have simply done NOTHING in the way of facilities improvements had “FF” failed. Of course – Washington is a responsible institution and I do not think that would be the case.

Another question – if Ms. Farber’s salary is of no concern to taxpayers – then why does hers appear in a database with hundreds of other East Bay civic employees ?

But – we’re busy promoting the city’s next tax initiative – no time for this other stuff.

And if you still think CEOs are getting paid too much, then this is a free country. Work hard anybody can become a CEO

A huge part of the responsibility for that result lays in the hands of the taxpayers themselves.

A small part of the responsibilty for that result lays in the hands of a media that is distracted with a lot of other feel good or incomplete reporting and is less than aggressive in its pursuit of Tri-City politics and civic business.

Let’s be thankful we have a partial and incomplete story from which no conclusion should be drawn.

Otherwise, bravo for beating me out for longest post.