Posted on 12/30/2005 5:36:29 AM PST by pageonetoo
Howard University Hospital is coming off its worst financial year in a decade as it negotiates a deal with the District to build a $400 million medical complex in Southeast, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times.
The hospital lost about $17.3 million in fiscal 2005 largely because of increasing operating costs and bad debt, according to records filed with D.C. Medicaid regulators. The filings were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
Howard financial administrators said the loss was the hospital's first since the mid-1990s. However, they expressed confidence that the hospital would return to profitability through restructuring and layoffs...
...
... In fiscal 2004, Howard originally reported a loss of nearly $150 million in filings. But last week, officials revised the figure to a roughly $1.2 million profit.
Mr. Evans and Derrick Hollings, the hospital's chief financial officer, blamed the original report of a $149.3 million loss on a computer glitch that failed to record a $169 million revenue line item...
...
... Howard officials said the mistake did not affect the hospital's Medicaid reimbursement. D.C. Medicaid officials were unavailable for comment yesterday...
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
This is a "black" university, in a "black" city, where the local politicians are massively "black". They are a "minority", so they will get everything they want. Even iwhen it means we all pay for some more corruption! It's no different from NO...
Everyone in DC with an IQ over 40 goes to George Washington University Hospital.
I broke my foot while walking along the GW Parkway overlook trail, down to the river, back in the 90's. It is steep and easy to fall. I did.
Though a VA resident, at the time, GWU Hospital was closest, and I got my foot repaired properly, thanks to them. I was happy that I did NOT go to the other one, after someone telling me some horror stories...
They take money to run the place, but it doesn't seem to show up anywhere. It's like they are just throwing it away...
ooops!
You asked a question in your Post, then you answered it in the same post.
Howard is a little better than Freedmans Hospital, which it replaced, but mostly because its a new building.The same people who ran Freedmans still run Howard.
The land was better used when Griffith stadium stood on it.
I worked for 20+ years at one of the major Harvard teaching hospitals in Boston and I can say that there's a reason why reputations in medicine are worth heeding.
However,the "public" hospital in Boston,Boston City Hospital,had,and has,an excellent reputaion for the treatment of gunshot wounds and stab wounds because they're closest to the bad areas of Boston and,therefore,most of these cases are brought there.
Now, they don't even want to keep the site of RFK, for the new MLB stadium. Who is going to profit from the new location? Why is the old site no good (or is that connected to the previous ?)?
I cant tell you for the life of me why they cant use the JFK Stadium, It was built for baseball and it appears to me like they could renovate the place a hell of a lot cheaper than they can build a new one. If they want sky boxes they could add them. The one good thing about the new location, it will put most of the gay bars, porn theaters ,and bath houses out of business.
I cannot understand why they need a new stadium except for the fact that one of the codicils they promised to get a baseball team was they would build a new stadium. All owners think they are owed a new stadium these days. personally I think its BS . Nothing wrong with JFK
I cant tell you for the life of me why they cant use the JFK Stadium, It was built for baseballSorry, RFK was built as a public-expense multi-purpose stadium. It forced closure of Griffith, which led directly to the team's departure from the city. Bad public policy.
Here's a contemporaneous news article on the stadium when it was first proposed:
***Calvin felt that the team's attendance problem stemmed from Washington's increasingly largely black population, who were less well-off and who tended not to support the Senators, although they had often packed Griffith Stadium for Negro League games. He began lobbying to be allowed to move the franchise to Minneapolis.**
About 1961 Calvin Griffith did indeed move the Washington Senators (Nats) to Minneapolis and they became the Twins, but an expansion team called the Washington Senators did play at the new Stadium for 8 or 10 years before moving to Texas. I am pretty sure of that.
You are probably correct though that is was built for baseball and football.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
