October 24, 2016 – Florida Bulldog
by Dan Christensen
The law firm that’s overseeing taxpayer-supported Broward Health’s compliance with conditions imposed by the U.S. last year when it paid $70 million to resolve alleged lawbreaking has concluded the troubled hospital district is in a state of “cultural civil war.”
Baker Donelson was hired in December to serve as the “Independent Review Organization” (IRO) under the terms of a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement between the North Broward Hospital District (NBHD) – Broward Health’s legal name – and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The IRO’s 137-page annual report, obtained by Florida Bulldog using Florida’s Public Records Law, lays out what it says are Broward Health’s “numerous systems deficiencies” while also defending itself from anonymous, yet widely distributed accusations that it was not truly independent and was hired thanks to insider connections.
The report, often citing unnamed sources, is highly critical of Broward Health’s recently departed Chief Compliance Officer Donna Lewis for refusing to produce, among other things, requested information about employee complaints. Also singled out for criticism: Broward Health’s Interim CEO Pauline Grant and Chief Information Officer Doris Peek, who, along with Lewis, are accused of planting “negative articles regarding the IRO in the local media.”
Grant and Peek both denied the accusation on Sunday. “I never planted any negative articles,” said Grant. Lewis could not be reached for comment.
The report and its exhibits can be downloaded here.
“There has been a pervasive pattern of personal destruction in which former and some current members of the senior management team use public meetings, the media, self-serving reports disguised as work product, and frivolous ‘anonymous’ complaints through the disclosure program as a means to falsely attack the character of, pressure, or aid in the termination of NBHD’s Board of Commissioners, senior management, and others,” the report says. “In other situations, it appears the methods are used to enhance the influence of senior management’s departmental fiefdoms.”
The report goes on to assert that management actions “appear to be routinely based upon self-interest, protection of position and department, not for the betterment of the system.” That “lack of professionalism” fails “not only the patients the system services, but the taxpayers who help fund it.” [READ MORE]