I was disappointed after reading the opinion article recently submitted by several State Senators.  It is regrettable that the Senators would make such statements when they apparently did little or no research into the facts of the matter.  I recently visited the Manor and spoke to several individuals and found the situation to be quite different than the one being portrayed.  Let me address some of the concerns raised by the Senators, and respond with indisputable facts.

1.) Lancaster Manor is a not a facility of last resort.  A prevailing misperception is that the Lancaster Manor is a facility of last resort. It’s not. EVERY person residing at the Manor has a payer source, whether it is private or Medicaid/Medicare.  In addition, the Manor has and does turn away potential residents for any number of reasons— including financial and medical. Finally, it seems many potential residents are choosing not to reside at Lancaster Manor. Currently, the Manor has about 236 residents when its capacity is about 293.  It seems that potential residents are opting for other nursing care facilities making Lancaster Manor not the facility of last resort, but rather the facility of last choice.
 
2.)    Lancaster Manor is not self-sustaining. The Senators claim that “Lancaster Manor has been and continues to be a self-sustaining nursing facility . . . “. Boldly stating that the Manor is self-sustaining is not only ridiculous, it simply is untrue.  Let’s review the facts: In 2008-09, the County had to provide over $735,000 in taxpayer support. In 2009-10, the County Commissioners were forced to budget $1.4 million to cover operational expenses. In addition, the Manor has deferred capital improvements to the tune of at least $2.8 million.  These figures do not include the amount of support staff from other county offices, let alone the amount of overtime, sick leave, workers’ compensation claims, and other legal liabilities.
 
3.)    Privatizing Lancaster Manor Provides Even Better Service to Residents. The topic of selling the Manor came up in 2007 when the Manor was losing nearly $100,000/month according to County Budget and Fiscal Office.   Rather than sell the Manor at that time, the County decided to bring in Ron Fetters as Administrator to turn things around.  That failed, culminating with Ron Fetters resignation a year later.  With mounting losses and negative cash flow, the decision to sell was again brought up in February 2009 at which time it was decided to move forward with the sale.  The process to sell the Manor has followed the process outlined in State Statue to sell such an asset, which included an RFQ that any and all interested parties were invited to respond.  It was a fair, open, and inclusive process.  It has already been made clear that all the residents of the Manor will be able to stay and that the current employees will have the opportunity to remain. 

Because it is a government facility, citizens need to understand that Lancaster Manor is prohibited from functioning like a private facility, which makes competing with private facilities difficult. It makes me question whether government should be in the business of providing these services when clearly private business can meet those needs. 

Assuming the County can minimize the restrictions on the sale to maximize the return to the taxpayers, we hopefully will be able to create a fund similar to the Community Health Endowment which happened when the City sold Lincoln General to Bryan Hospital.  This has already been suggested by Commissioner Deb Schorr, and has the potential to positively impact our County for years to come.  

Had the Senators taken the time and effort to talk to relevant officials involved with the operations of this facility, I am sure they would agree the sale makes sense.  The right process was followed. It’s the right decision for the County, and the residents of the Manor.

Paul Zoz, LCGOP Chair

source: http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/article_23213fb4-b85c-11de-bd8e-001cc4c03286.html