COMMENTARY

“The time has come for a serious conversation about whether Indian River County’s taxpayers should continue to be in the hospital business.”

MARK SCHUMANN

Indian River Hospital District Chairman Thomas Spackman this week raised the prospect that the district might consider selling the publicly owned hospital, if the district and Indian River Medical Center management are not able to resolve differences over how to fund indigent care.

Spackman expressed frustration that IRMC management has yet to formally responded to any of the district’s more recent proposal. The publicly owned hospital is leased by the district to IRMC,  non-for-profit corporation.  The arrangement is largely intended to enable the hospital’s governing board to operation outside the Florida Sunshine Law.

As owners of the hospital, Indian River County’s taxpayers are on the hook for funding indigent care, currently to the tune of $8 million a year. If the hospital were privately owned, as is Sebastian River Medical Center, the corporation would be obligated to absorb the cost of indigent care. Sebastian River Medical Center, though it treats indigent patients, does not receive any of the $12 million a year in tax dollars raised by the Hospital District.

In a recent press report, Hospital Trustee Jim Seaton was quoted as saying, “When you look at this hospital and how it has performed over the years, it’s abysmal,” Seaton said. “I know there’s been a lot of talk about selling and I heard a number several months ago that was about $150 million. If the hospital went out to be sold, this district would be sitting on a load of cash that could serve indigent-care needs. At some point, I think it’s worth discussing because there are a lot of benefits could accrue from it.”

In December 2013, Inside Indian River reported on a nationwide trend to privatize publicly owned hospitals.  Manatee County, for example sold its public hospital and used the proceeds to create a trust fund. Interest earnings from the fund are now used to pay for indigent care. See: As their mission changes, will privatization be the future for some publicly owned hospitals?

Curiously, for all their talk about limiting local government to the delivery of only “essential” services, the Indian River Taxpayers Association and the Indian River Tea Party have yet to raise legitimate questions about whether the taxpayers of Indian River County should continue to be in the business of delivering medical care. The question is, why are these groups and others so protective of IRMC, and why are they willing to allow the county’s taxpayers to continue to shoulder such a financial burden?

The time has come for a serious conversation about whether Indian River County’s taxpayers should continue to be in the hospital business.