Thread: Obamacare Contractor Overbilled UK ‘Tens of Millions of Pounds’

Obamacare Contractor Overbilled UK ‘Tens of Millions of Pounds’

Posted on July 17, 2013 by Dave Jolly

You can’t open up any news source these days without hearing about how much the rising costs of Obamacare are. The cost of medical insurance is going through the roof, the cost of medical treatment is going through the roof and cost to employers in going through the roof. At the same time, jobs and hours are being decreased and millions more Americans are finding themselves left without health coverage or sufficient income to purchase their own.
If we needed another excuse for the increased costs of Obamacare, the government may have provided another one. In June, the US Department of Health and Human Services awarded a $1.2 billion contract with Serco Inc. The company will work with the implementation of the health benefit exchanges part of Obamacare. They will support the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) located in Kentucky, Alabama and Virginia with about 1,500 staff. Would you believe that this is the first health law contract, which is not very reassuring.
According to their website:

“Serco Inc. is a leading provider of professional, technology, and management services focused on the federal government. Our customer-first approach, robust portfolio of services, and global experience enable us to respond with innovative solutions that achieve outcomes that matter. Serco Inc. is part of an international service company with employees around the world.”

Serco will fit in well with the rest of those involved with Obamacare as they are currently under investigation by the British government. Reportedly, they overbilled the government by ‘tens of millions of pounds.’ The United Kingdom had contracted with Serco to monitor offenders on parole and convicts released on bail. The overbilling was discovered with the Justice Ministry conducted an audit.
Chris Grayling, Justice Minister told Parliament:

“They do not believe that anything dishonest has taken place, but we have agreed that if the audit does show dishonest action, we will jointly call in the relevant authorities to address it.”

Alan Hill, spokesman for Serco responded to the allegations saying:

“We’re moving forward with the contract. We’ve got a tight deadline to get everybody trained and do all the testing.”

But Serco is such an efficient company in all that they do. For example, Grayling stated when they ran the audit, they discovered that Serco had billed them:

“…for people who were back in prison and had had their tags removed, people who had left the country, and those who had never been tagged in the first place but who had instead been returned to court.”

And to think, the CMS contract with Serco is one of the largest contracts involving Obamacare and they will be processing and monitoring millions of applications for government subsidized healthcare. With their track record in the United Kingdom, I’m sure they’ll do a bang up job of losing applications, mishandling others and charging the US government for every bit of it.



Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/07/...#ixzz2ZPY3CpmK


Now this leads me to thinking that OBAMACARE is a NWO thing being foisted onto the the American public!!!

Thursday, 18 July 2013 09:17 ObamaCare Subsidies Free for the Asking, Administration Rules

Written by Michael Tennant






In an effort to prevent an ObamaCare “train wreck” — as retiring Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) described the law’s impending implementation — and forestall future repeal efforts, the Obama administration has just opened the door to potentially widespread fraud by making it possible for people to obtain health-insurance subsidies for which they are ineligible under the law.

It all started on July 2, when the administration announced that it would delay the employer mandate until 2015. That created a major problem for the state insurance exchanges. In order to qualify for a subsidy when buying insurance on an exchange, an individual must attest that his employer is not offering him “affordable” coverage — that is, coverage that costs him no more than 9.5 percent of his household income. But if employers are now released from the mandate and its reporting requirements next year, there will be no way for exchanges to verify that individuals applying for subsidies are actually eligible for them.

The administration solved this dilemma in the same way it has solved so many other problems with ObamaCare. Three days later, when even fewer people were paying attention, it quietly ruled that exchanges could simply dispense with the verification process and hand out subsidies based on applicants’ say-so.

“For eligibility determination for insurance affordability programs that are effective before January 1, 2015, … the Exchange may accept the applicant’s attestation regarding enrollment in an eligible employer-sponsored plan … without further verification,” reads the final rule.

On top of that, although the subsidies themselves are supposed to be tied to income, the administration also ruled that, for the most part, exchanges need not verify that applicants are earning the amount of money they claim. Exchanges now only have to audit a “statistically significant sample” of applicants; for everyone else, “the Exchange may accept the attestation of projected annual household income without further verification.”

In other words, pretty much anyone who asks for a subsidy will get one. “Those subsidies are expected to be worth some $5,000 per person annually, and before this … announcement were expected to total about $23 billion next year,” reported Reuters.

By virtually guaranteeing that all applicants will receive subsidies, the administration has almost certainly increased the number of people who will get them — and the consequent cost to taxpayers. As the Wall Street Journal observed, “21% to 25% of Earned Income Tax Credits flow to people who aren’t eligible, according to the Treasury inspector general. The same error rate for ObamaCare would amount to as much as $250 billion in improper payments in its first decade.”

The administration claims that it is relaxing the verification rules because of “legislative and operational barriers” and “a large amount of systems development … which cannot occur in time for October 1, 2013,” when enrollment in the exchanges is scheduled to commence. Translation: Centrally planning the entire U.S. healthcare system is a much bigger task than Democrats ever expected it would be, and so they are now being forced to scale back their plans to what is manageable at the present time — to go into “triage mode,” as Washington and Lee University law professor Timothy Jost told the Washington Post.

“They have tried to figure out what they need to do right now and what they can delay until later,” he elaborated. “And they are very low on resources.”

While there is undoubtedly some truth in the administration’s claim, it is probably not the whole story. ObamaCare mandates that insurers accept all applicants, provide them with a wide array of benefits, and charge them the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions. This encourages the purchase of insurance by those who previously could not obtain or afford coverage because they present high risks to insurers. That, wrote National Review's Yuval Levin, presents another problem:
If not enough people sign up for the exchanges, the system could end up with an insufficient and unsustainable insurance pool — too few healthy people to balance the sick ones and fund the cost of their care. The premium shock — that is, the fact that relatively healthy people will face much higher insurance premiums under the new system than they face today — that looks likely to be prevalent in the exchanges in almost every state could well drive younger and healthier people away, the penalty for remaining uninsured (the so-called “individual mandate”) may not be high enough at first to keep them in the system, and many people may also be inclined to wait and see how the exchanges shape up before they join.

This concern is very high on the agenda of those implementing the law. It is why they are investing in a huge PR effort to drive enrollment. It is surely part of the reason for delaying the employer mandate — allowing some large employers to dump their workers into the exchanges without a penalty. And it seems very likely also to be a key factor behind the decision to allow people access to the exchange subsidies without proving they actually qualify for them.
Then there are good, old-fashioned politics involved, argued Forbes’ Avik Roy:
The goal here is plain as day. The Obama administration is laser-focused on making sure that enough Americans enroll onto Obamacare-subsidized health insurance platforms, because if they do, it will be politically impossible for Republicans to repeal Obamacare in the future.

Politics ain’t beanbag, they say. But deliberately encouraging tens of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse in order to achieve a political objective is profoundly immoral. It’s a breach of faith with the hard-working taxpayers whose paychecks are being harnessed to a cause many of them don’t support.
Considering that the administration and its congressional allies disregarded the opinions of more than half of those “hard-working taxpayers” in passing ObamaCare in the first place — and continue to ignore them to this day despite poll after poll showing that Americans disapprove of the law and want it repealed — it would not appear that Democrats are much concerned about the immorality of their actions. Quite the opposite, remarked the Journal: “Now that they are discovering how difficult it is to remake one-sixth of the U.S. economy, they are rewriting the law as they go and telling Americans they have no choice but to live with the consequences.”




http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/hea...stration-rules

Fox Nation Krauthammer: Unions Got ‘Swindled’ By Obamacare, In State Of ‘Desperation And Disappointment’

video at link below



http://conservative50plus.com/blog/f...4c6a05-3065713

IBD: Whether Called HillaryCare Or ObamaCare, It’s Still Socialism

By RALPH R. REILAND, Investor’s Business Daily

“’Under socialism, production is entirely directed by the orders of the central board of production management,” explained Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), sociologist, philosopher and Austrian School economist.
Under central planning, intrinsically, the few do the planning while the many are required to become cogs in what Mises called an “industrial army,” a herd of individuals without authentic individuality who are well-trained to be yielding and unimaginative, “bound to obey his superior’s orders.”
The problem, aside from this lack of freedom and power for the majority, is the limited knowledge, an inescapable shortcoming, among the planners and societal designers.
As F.A. Hayek explained in his book “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism”: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
We see, for instance, how little the central planners really knew over the past half-century about the military victories and nation-building they imagined they could centrally design in Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
We saw, too, how Hillary Clinton in 1993, with a severe case of fatal conceit, self-importantly imagined how she could successfully redesign the entire American health care system by holding a series of closed-door meetings with a small cadre of Ivy League academics who had basically no medical knowledge, limited business experience and no real appreciation of the central role that individual incentives and personal sovereignty play in a free and decentralized society, for both health care providers and health care consumers.”
Read More

Perspective


Whether Called HillaryCare Or ObamaCare, It's Still Socialism



By RALPH R. REILAND

Posted 07/16/2013 06:08 PM ET


'Under socialism, production is entirely directed by the orders of the central board of production management," explained Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), sociologist, philosopher and Austrian School economist.
Under central planning, intrinsically, the few do the planning while the many are required to become cogs in what Mises called an "industrial army," a herd of individuals without authentic individuality who are well-trained to be yielding and unimaginative, "bound to obey his superior's orders."
The problem, aside from this lack of freedom and power for the majority, is the limited knowledge, an inescapable shortcoming, among the planners and societal designers.
As F.A. Hayek explained in his book "The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism": "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
We see, for instance, how little the central planners really knew over the past half-century about the military victories and nation-building they imagined they could centrally design in Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
We saw, too, how Hillary Clinton in 1993, with a severe case of fatal conceit, self-importantly imagined how she could successfully redesign the entire American health care system by holding a series of closed-door meetings with a small cadre of Ivy League academics who had basically no medical knowledge, limited business experience and no real appreciation of the central role that individual incentives and personal sovereignty play in a free and decentralized society, for both health care providers and health care consumers.
The resulting health reform plan was a top-down, command-and-control system, simultaneously coercive, punitive, complex, politically naïve and economically destructive, the core of which was a mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage for all their employees, regardless of their ability of pay.
Asked by Virginia Congressman Norman Sisisky what could be done to ease the burden of her health care mandates on small businesses, Mrs. Clinton retorted in her best let-'em-eat-cake style, "I can't go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America."
What her condescending reply didn't acknowledge was how it was precisely her plan's costly mandates on employers that would directly cause a certain portion of America's entrepreneurs to become undercapitalized.
In short, the undercapitalizations that her mandate would inevitably cause, plus the resulting bankruptcies, business retrenchments and job losses, weren't her problem.
And Hillary Clinton's verdict on business owners who couldn't afford to give 100% health care coverage to 100% of their employees? "Where I come from, freeloaders and free riders get no respect," she proclaimed.
The message from central planning was loud and clear: Go out of business if you can't pay for our vision.
Now, two decades after Hillary Clinton's central planning debacle, the ill-designed ObamaCare system is similarly running off the rails on its way to implementation.
On July 2, the Obama administration announced a postponement of the employer mandate, to 2015, a key funding source for ObamaCare. That surprise policy change (an illegal action by the administration, since it violates the law passed by Congress) was soon followed by an announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services that it won't attempt to verify individual eligibility for ObamaCare subsidies.
That now makes ObamaCare a plan that dries up its funding while simultaneously setting in motion a half-baked "honor system" scheme that's sure to increase the level of fraudulent handouts.
And still, the central planners plod along, displaying more faith than knowledge, unwilling to recognize what Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman so succinctly explained:
"The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government."
• Reiland is associate professor of economics and B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz2ZVL6lZnp
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

http://conservative50plus.com/blog/i...4c6a05-3065713

IBD: NHS Socialized Medicine In Britain: Unmitigated Failure

Government Run Healthcare. Get Ready America…Obamacare Is Coming!

“Health Care: A new report on Britain’s National Health Service notes that as many as 13,000 needless deaths have occurred in 14 NHS hospital trusts since 2005. This is no fluke. It’s the result of socialized medicine, done by experts.
Britain’s much vaunted public medical system, accountable for 82% of all health care spending, according to the OECD, is in shambles.
A warning shot was fired a few months ago when one hospital, Mid-Staffordshire, was found to be a veritable death trap of neglect, misspent funds and starved investment. Now a new report on 14 NHS trusts, released by government-appointed Prof. Sir Bruce Keogh this week, finds that neglect and “needless” deaths are pretty much a characteristic of the entire system.
“We hear of A&E departments ‘in meltdown’, GP services ‘on the verge of failure,’ the Welsh HNHS being ‘on its knees,’” wrote Simon Jenkins in the left-leaning Guardian. “The 111 non-emergency telephone service is reportedly useless. On one evening, Cornwall was said to have just one agency GP to cover the entire county. Last week’s Cavendish report on frontline nursing told of wards left in the hands of untrained assistants for hours, indeed whole weekends,” Jenkins wrote.”
Read More

NHS Socialized Medicine In Britain: Unmitigated Failure


Posted 07/17/2013 06:21 PM ET

Health Care: A new report on Britain's National Health Service notes that as many as 13,000 needless deaths have occurred in 14 NHS hospital trusts since 2005. This is no fluke. It's the result of socialized medicine, done by experts.
Britain's much vaunted public medical system, accountable for 82% of all health care spending, according to the OECD, is in shambles.
A warning shot was fired a few months ago when one hospital, Mid-Staffordshire, was found to be a veritable death trap of neglect, misspent funds and starved investment. Now a new report on 14 NHS trusts, released by government-appointed Prof. Sir Bruce Keogh this week, finds that neglect and "needless" deaths are pretty much a characteristic of the entire system.
"We hear of A&E departments 'in meltdown', GP services 'on the verge of failure,' the Welsh HNHS being 'on its knees,'" wrote Simon Jenkins in the left-leaning Guardian. "The 111 non-emergency telephone service is reportedly useless. On one evening, Cornwall was said to have just one agency GP to cover the entire county. Last week's Cavendish report on frontline nursing told of wards left in the hands of untrained assistants for hours, indeed whole weekends," Jenkins wrote.
Then there was the "Liverpool Care Pathway" — an Orwellian death panel operation, where nurses shouted to visitors to not give their dying relatives sips of water for fear it would interfere with the hospital's death target. "No one was doing anything 'wrong' since everything was done by the book," wrote Jenkins.
Keogh found that as many as 13,000 "needless" deaths were the result, about 3 per day in each hospital district.
The U.K. has seen reform after reform of its health care system, but none has made much difference.
The problem is it's a socialized system. Unlike a private one — and in the OECD, only the U.S., Mexico and Chile have them — state priorities trump those of the consumer. That's why the NHS is celebrated as a patriotic duty — as it was during the absurd propaganda spectacle celebrating NHS at the 2012 London Olympics.
Big problems fester because the state can cover them up. Anyone criticizing the NHS is shouted down because bureaucracies resist change, Telegraph writer Daniel Hannan wrote.
So much for socialized medicine being a more "humane" form of health care. The Labour Party, which has touted and enshrined this socialism for decades, is now in crisis over the Keogh findings. Far from extending life, as private health care systems do, socialized health care is a reliable vehicle only for needless death.


http://conservative50plus.com/blog/ibd-nhs-socialized-medicine-in-britain-unmitigated-failure/?utm_source=Conservative+50+Plus&utm_campaign=2ce9 4c6a05-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_be4 57ca6cc-2ce94c6a05-3065713

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz2ZVM4RcVh
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

What’s Happening with Obamacare?


On Wednesday, the House (including many Democrats) voted to delay both Obamacare’s employer mandate and individual mandate by one year, for the first time revealing fissures in congressional Democrats’ lockstep support for the health care law. Cato scholar Michael F. Cannon comments, “The president’s unilateral delay of the employer mandate put House Democrats in a most unwelcome position: either cast a highly unpopular vote to preserve the individual mandate, or reveal a fissure among Obamacare supporters.”

• “Obamacare Allies Break Ranks,” by Michael F. Cannon
• "Obamacare Gets Worse for Workers,” by Michael D. Tanner
• "Aside From That, Mrs. Lincoln, How's ObamaCare Implementation Going?” by Michael F. Cannon
• "Obama to Congress: Only I Can Amend ObamaCare” by Michael F. Cannon

clashdaily‬ http://clashdaily.com/

This is my email from the Nevada Journal newsletter I get thought I would share it with you!!!

Healthcare Articles

Could disregard of the U.S. Constitution
by Harry Reid end up dooming Obamacare?

Senate majority leader ignored Constitution’s origination clause

By Steven Miller | Tuesday, May 14, 2013 | 0 Comments
LAS VEGAS — The last time Obamacare was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court, it barely survived.
Only because Chief Justice John Roberts creatively re-construed the law’s unconstitutional penalties as constitutional “taxes” was a 5-to-4 Court majority able to form and save the gargantuan law, officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA).
Even then, a key provision of the law — denying states federal Medicaid subsidies if they did not agree to expand that program — still went down, substantially complicating prospects for PPACA’s success.
Now another significant legal challenge is bearing down upon the law, and right at the heart of that court case are decisions made four years ago by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Continue reading »


Teachers Health Trust CEO confirms trust
could go under 'at some point' without
revenue increase

CEO dismisses 'belly-up in 60-90 days' statement but acknowledges trust 'problems'

By Kyle Gillis | Monday, February 11, 2013 | 4 Comments
LAS VEGAS — The Teachers Health Trust may not be going “belly-up” in 60-90 days, but if it doesn’t get a premium increase from the Clark County School District, it will “at some point” run out of revenue, says CEO Peter Alpert.
“Can I tell you when, exactly?” asks Alpert. “No. There’s lots of moving parts in this business. If we don’t receive [premium increases], will we be faced with some tough decisions? Yes.”
In a wide-ranging interview with Nevada Journal, Alpert discussed the trust’s financial health as well as its relationship with the Clark County Education ...
Continue reading »


Nevada restaurant owners on Obamacare:
'We can't pay for this'

Owners say health-care law's costs hit everyone, affects entire industry

By Kyle Gillis | Monday, November 26, 2012 | 3 Comments
LAS VEGAS — Nevada restaurant owners — increasingly anxious about the future of their businesses under the Affordable Care Act — are echoing statements by national restaurant chains about the excessive costs the law will impose on them.
"I don't know what secret [the politicians] know, where they just assume we can write them a check," said Sam Facchini, owner of Metro Pizza in Las Vegas.
"We can't pay for this. Most of us [restaurant owners] operate on a thin margin and trying to stay in compliance [with the law] will make things much tighter."
The biggest concern restaurant owners have with the law — commonly referred to as “Obamacare” — is Section 1513, the Employer Mandate. Going into full effect in January 2014, it requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide federally "qualified" health insurance or pay penalties of up to $2,000 per employee.
Continue reading »


Nevada doctors share how Obamacare
harms patients and physicians

Concerns include reduced access for patients and pay cuts

By Kyle Gillis | Monday, September 17, 2012 | 4 Comments
Nevada Journal asked three local doctors about Obamacare and how it affects their practice. The interviews took place on Friday, September 14, 2012 at the Clark County Library, where the three doctors participated in a panel discussion about healthcare sponsored by the 60 Plus Association.
Continue reading »






Substandard medical screenings increase risk for refugees, Las Vegans

Health district, Catholic Charities defend nurse-conducted examinations

By Steven Miller | Tuesday, August 21, 2012 | 0 Comments
LAS VEGAS — Refugees from around the world come to Southern Nevada, often from countries with diseases not commonly seen in the native U.S.-born population.
How sound is the medical screening refugees receive? Are they getting adequate medical care?
According to the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement, more than a thousand refugees annually relocate to Las Vegas with federal assistance. The top countries of origin, says ORR, are Cuba, Iraq, Eritrea, Bhutan and Ethiopia.
Because the refugees often come “from regions of the world with high rates of certain diseases,” notes the federal agency, “refugees face special health challenges.” They thus must first undergo medical screening overseas to ensure they are medically eligible for the U.S. Refugee Program. Then, after arriving in the U.S., they are directed to undergo more in-depth medical examination. ...
The Southern Nevada Health District, under contract to Catholic Charities since at least 2008, conducts the federally required medical screenings for the refugees — including their health histories and physical examinations.
The refugee medical screenings conducted by SNHD over the last five years, however, do not appear to conform to federal standards.
Continue reading »


Board of Examiners peers into the
health-insurance-exchange darkness

Sandoval appears to be the lone GOP governor pushing his state into Obamacare

By Steven Miller | Tuesday, July 24, 2012 | 4 Comments
LAS VEGAS — Obamacare, the politicians of America and Nevada are discovering, is a realm of the “unknown unknowns.”
The phrase comes from a former U.S. secretary of defense who once publicly distinguished the “known unknowns“— the things we currently know we don't know — from the unknown unknowns: the things we currently are not even aware that we don't know.
Case in point: the long and growing list of questions the Obama administration appears incapable of answering today about its signature legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in the wake of the June 28 U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
Continue reading »


Without states' collaboration, Obamacare fails

Employers outside Nevada may have competitive advantage

By Steven Miller | Wednesday, July 18, 2012 | 1 Comment
Nevada's alleged control over state's Obamacare insurance exchange an illusion

Gov. Brian Sandoval has repeatedly explained his aggressive drive to implement Obamacare’s prescribed health-exchange system in Nevada by saying he wants the Silver State, not the federal government, to control the exchanges.
However the state legislation that Sandoval’s administration introduced and that he then signed in 2011 — Senate Bill 440 — gives the state of Nevada no control over the “Silver State Health Insurance Exchange” it established.
Instead, it — like the subsequent law, Chapter 695I of the Nevada Revised Statutes — simply promised to submissively do whatever the federal government directs.
Read the full story

LAS VEGAS — Gov. Brian Sandoval’s eagerness to implement an Obamacare health exchange in Nevada may well subject state employers to heavy federal penalties that other states’ employers won’t face.
That’s one implication of a gaping loophole in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) — popularly called “Obamacare” — now getting increasing attention in Congress and the U.S. business community.
It is also the subject of a Case Western Reserve University School of Law article released to the public Monday. ...
So what is the large hole in the legislation? It results from the decision by the drafters — embodied in multiple provisions throughout the text of the law — to make individuals eligible for a tax credit only if they buy their insurance through a state exchange, not a federal one.
Continue reading »


Nevada's alleged control over state's
Obamacare insurance exchange an illusion

State's implementing law simply agrees to obey feds

By Steven Miller | Wednesday, July 18, 2012 | 0 Comments
LAS VEGAS — Gov. Brian Sandoval has repeatedly explained his aggressive drive to implement Obamacare’s prescribed health-exchange system in Nevada by saying he wants the Silver State, not the federal government, to control the exchanges.
However the state legislation that Sandoval’s administration introduced and that he then signed in 2011 — Senate Bill 440 — gives the state of Nevada no control over the “Silver State Health Insurance Exchange” it established.
Instead, it — like the subsequent law, Chapter 695I of the Nevada Revised Statutes — simply promised to submissively do whatever the federal government directs.
Continue reading »


Southern Nevada Health District board's makeup is at the root of SNHD's problems, say experts

Former county manager, current elected officials call for board overhaul

By Steven Miller | Tuesday, July 10, 2012 | 1 Comment
LAS VEGAS — Current troubles at the Southern Nevada Health District didn’t emerge out of the blue, say long-time observers.
Those problems have a common root, they argue, that goes back many years.
It’s the organization’s governance structure.
Thom Reilly, who ran Clark County for five years as its county manager, sees the parallels between the district’s troubles then and its troubles now.
Continue reading »


Problems at the Southern Nevada Health District run deep

Chief Health Officer resigns amid controversy

By Steven Miller | Thursday, June 21, 2012 | 1 Comment
Subtext: Listen, Sands, we're the big dogs here!

Fireworks at county commission reveal metastasizing egos
Read the full story

LAS VEGAS — So ... just how deep are the problems at the Southern Nevada Health District?
And will the public ever learn the full story?
Today, the district Board of Health is scheduled to accept the resignation of Chief Health Officer Dr. Lawrence Sands, which was announced Friday.
Sands has worked for SNHD since 2004 and since 2007 has been the nominal leader of the organization.
But on May 15, a firestorm of raw hostility, blasting forth from Clark County commissioners, had made it clear that the Sands era was over.
Continue reading »


Page 2 »






http://nevadajournal.com/category/health-care/