Nevada Medicaid Information

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Dear Renown Leadership,

I'm writing about an issue that has been partly resolved resolved, at least on the surface. I'm writing because I have paid a huge price; I have earned the right to tell you these things. Also, I should persist in my effort to genuinely make a difference.

I count Mr. Miller as a respectable man and I believe he respects the opinions of others around him. So, in lieu of any direct response from him, I am forwarding you this note and web site link. It contains information and correspondence to and from Renown administrators about a denial of a special service for disabled people.

http://renownhealth.info/html/jim_miller_ceo_renown_health_.html

Eventually, (using resources outside of Renown Health), administrators worked out a provision that will now supply this home care authorization service. Today I have one remaining question...

• In supporting the original staff decision, (to not supply a desperately needed service), has Renown administration tolerated or inadvertently encouraged those staff members to exercise insensibility to waste and suffering?

Here are the pertinent questions relating to the denial of home care authorization service:

1. Did significant waste and harm occur?
2. If the service had been supplied, would the waste and harm have been prevented?
3. Was the decision to provide, or to deny the service, completely discretionary? In other words, was there any insurmountable obstacle or compelling reason that the service had to be denied?
4. Was the staff "pleaded with" beforehand about the impending harm in denying the service?

Having gone through it, I know...

1. There was significant harm and waste.
2. If the one-hour service had been supplied, the three month-long unnecessary hospitalization would not have occurred.
3. No insurmountable obstacle or compelling reason demanded that the service be denied.
4. Recognizing the gravity of my situation months before there was a total breakdown in my care, I repeatedly phoned, wrote, and visited the hospital staff with pleadings to address the problem.

Minimally, wouldn't you consider this as a demonstration of indifference to human need? If so, shouldn't the involved staff be cautioned rather than applauded for their actions? Besides requesting more workable systems for the disability community, I would more-so ask you to watch-guard against letting such a root of insensibility creep into Renown's corporate character.

Sincerely,

Rick Cline