1) https://theeprovocateur.
Showing posts with label georgia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label georgia. Show all posts
Friday, January 3, 2020
On Northwest Liberty News Talking Judges and Law Enforcement
find the articles referenced below.
1) https://theeprovocateur.
1) https://theeprovocateur.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Georgia Primary
The Democratic primary went to Ken Hodges. Meanwhile, current AG Thurgood Baker lost in his primary race to Roy Barnes. Both were featured in several pieces and the last one is here.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Ken Hodges, Dr. John Bagnato, the Election, and the Georgia Media
The decision of the judge was so stunning that the defendant, Dr. John Bagnato, and his entire defense team did all they could not to burst out laughing in the middle of the court room. Bagnato was charged with theft related to an alleged incident in which the District Attorney claimed he had broken into a home and stolen just over $100. From November of 2004-May of 2005, Dr. Bagnato would be arrested no less than three times in relation to this alleged incident. Finally, in May, the judge ruled that the prosecution couldn't establish that elements of a crime even existed.
This means that even though he was charged three times with theft, the prosecution couldn't even prove that a theft occurred, let alone that he committed. Anyone that has followed the plight of Dr. John Bagnato, of Albany, Georgia, closely can say beyond all reasonable doubt that he never committed this or any other crime. That scene in the court room was the climax of the criminal proceedings against him.
Yet, if you talk to Dr. Bagnato, as I have, he's not shy in saying that these criminal charges were part of an orchestrated retaliatory campaign because he dared to blow the whistle on corruption he found at Phoebe Putney Hospital located in his home town. Furthermore, he's not shy in telling you that along with blaming Phoebe Putney itself, he also lays much of the blame on Ken Hodges.
Hodges is currently running for the Attorney General of the state of Georgia. (his campaign refused repeated requests to speak on or off the record about this) In 2005, he was the district attorney for the district that included Albany, Georgia. He was NOT however the prosecutor in charge of the case against Dr. John Bagnato. By then, he was removed by the state's Attorney General, Thurgood Baker, and replaced with Kelly Burke, a neighboring District Attorney. That's because by the end of 2004, it had grown clear that Hodges was no longer impartial in the matter and was then in no position to prosecute Bagnato.
The whole thing starts two years earlier. That's when Dr. John Bagnato recruited his CPA, Charles Rehberg, to investigate the books of Phoebe Putney hospital. Putney is a non profit hospital which means they pay absolutely no taxes. It also means that they are supposed to provide a sufficient amount of so called charity care. This means the hospital should use the money they save in tax payments to provide care for those that can't afford it. That was the original and current intent of non profit hospitals.
Instead, Rehberg and Bagnato found that Putney was expanding and militant in going after non payments as low as $100. In other words, it was the estimation of Rehberg and Bagnato that Phoebe Putney was a non profit acting like a for profit. Then, Bagnato and Rehberg sent out a series of factoids ANONYMOUSLY to local businesses and politicians detailing their findings. Phoebe Putney was none too happy about all this and they hooked up with Hodges.
Hodges used the threat of a grand jury to subpoena phone and internet records from several area internet and phone companies and eventually figured out that Bagnato and Rehberg were the source of the factoids. The problem was that there was no grand jury. As such, Hodges was using the office of the District Attorney to investigate for a private citizen. This discovery lead Phoebe Putney to charge Bagnato and Rehberg civilly for about $60 million, a charge that was later dropped.
The civil charges were followed by a criminal investigation by Hodges' office. That lead to the charges recounted at the beginning. Of course, by the end of 2004, the series of events just recounted had come to light and Baker had no choice but to remove Hodges as the prosecutor. One thing that Baker didn't do was eliminate the investigation entirely. For this, Bagnato also has no love loss for Baker. He is firm in his belief that there was never any evidence that he stole anything from anyone. In fact, the only evidence there was originated from a Phoebe Putney investigator.
What's truly remarkable about this story is that it's received scant attention in Georgia. Dr. Bagnato believes the truth of this story indicts not only a candidate for Attorney General of Georgia but a candidate for its Governor. Furthermore, these events have been turned into a documentary called Do No Harm. If you live in Georgia, it's very unlikely that you will see this documentary. It's been screened twice in Atlanta and twice more in Albany with the help of watchdog group, Georgia Watch. Beyond that, the local PBS conglomerate has refused to show it on most of its stations. In fact, the film has seen far greater exposure in Chicago, hometown of the filmmaker Rebecca Shanberg, than in Georgia where its set.
Media coverage of both the film and the events surrounding the film have also been scant. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has only mentioned the film and these events in its blog. That means nothing related to this has been printed. In fact, the biggest coverage has been in area blogs. The conservative blog Peach Pundit ran a series of articles earlier in the year, and SWGA Politics ran a series last year. The local Albany, Georgia television station WALB has said little about the case or the movie even though it centers in their hometown. Their main contribution was in slowing down its release when that station put in an injunction against the movie when it used about 45 seconds worth of clips without receiving written authorization. That dispute was eventually resolved last summer and the movie can now be seen with the clips.
Meanwhile, Hodges has referred to Do No Harm as "propaganda" but has said little beyond that. The filmmaker vigorously challenged this characterization. Shanberg says that she presented the facts as they were based on cooperation of those involved. She says that filmmakers reached out to Hodges but neither he nor his campaign would cooperate. Most of these issues have barely been flushed because there has been scant media attention paid to the film and its events.
That's not due to a lack of evidence. Everything I've said is a matter of public disclosure. That's because both Dr. Bagnato and Charles Rehberg are involved in civil suits against all other parties mentioned. In fact, Peach Pundit included all documents related to the case in their series. So, most Georgians have no idea that this story even exists despite the clear implication it has against both a candidate for Attorney General and for Governor.
This means that even though he was charged three times with theft, the prosecution couldn't even prove that a theft occurred, let alone that he committed. Anyone that has followed the plight of Dr. John Bagnato, of Albany, Georgia, closely can say beyond all reasonable doubt that he never committed this or any other crime. That scene in the court room was the climax of the criminal proceedings against him.
Yet, if you talk to Dr. Bagnato, as I have, he's not shy in saying that these criminal charges were part of an orchestrated retaliatory campaign because he dared to blow the whistle on corruption he found at Phoebe Putney Hospital located in his home town. Furthermore, he's not shy in telling you that along with blaming Phoebe Putney itself, he also lays much of the blame on Ken Hodges.
Hodges is currently running for the Attorney General of the state of Georgia. (his campaign refused repeated requests to speak on or off the record about this) In 2005, he was the district attorney for the district that included Albany, Georgia. He was NOT however the prosecutor in charge of the case against Dr. John Bagnato. By then, he was removed by the state's Attorney General, Thurgood Baker, and replaced with Kelly Burke, a neighboring District Attorney. That's because by the end of 2004, it had grown clear that Hodges was no longer impartial in the matter and was then in no position to prosecute Bagnato.
The whole thing starts two years earlier. That's when Dr. John Bagnato recruited his CPA, Charles Rehberg, to investigate the books of Phoebe Putney hospital. Putney is a non profit hospital which means they pay absolutely no taxes. It also means that they are supposed to provide a sufficient amount of so called charity care. This means the hospital should use the money they save in tax payments to provide care for those that can't afford it. That was the original and current intent of non profit hospitals.
Instead, Rehberg and Bagnato found that Putney was expanding and militant in going after non payments as low as $100. In other words, it was the estimation of Rehberg and Bagnato that Phoebe Putney was a non profit acting like a for profit. Then, Bagnato and Rehberg sent out a series of factoids ANONYMOUSLY to local businesses and politicians detailing their findings. Phoebe Putney was none too happy about all this and they hooked up with Hodges.
Hodges used the threat of a grand jury to subpoena phone and internet records from several area internet and phone companies and eventually figured out that Bagnato and Rehberg were the source of the factoids. The problem was that there was no grand jury. As such, Hodges was using the office of the District Attorney to investigate for a private citizen. This discovery lead Phoebe Putney to charge Bagnato and Rehberg civilly for about $60 million, a charge that was later dropped.
The civil charges were followed by a criminal investigation by Hodges' office. That lead to the charges recounted at the beginning. Of course, by the end of 2004, the series of events just recounted had come to light and Baker had no choice but to remove Hodges as the prosecutor. One thing that Baker didn't do was eliminate the investigation entirely. For this, Bagnato also has no love loss for Baker. He is firm in his belief that there was never any evidence that he stole anything from anyone. In fact, the only evidence there was originated from a Phoebe Putney investigator.
What's truly remarkable about this story is that it's received scant attention in Georgia. Dr. Bagnato believes the truth of this story indicts not only a candidate for Attorney General of Georgia but a candidate for its Governor. Furthermore, these events have been turned into a documentary called Do No Harm. If you live in Georgia, it's very unlikely that you will see this documentary. It's been screened twice in Atlanta and twice more in Albany with the help of watchdog group, Georgia Watch. Beyond that, the local PBS conglomerate has refused to show it on most of its stations. In fact, the film has seen far greater exposure in Chicago, hometown of the filmmaker Rebecca Shanberg, than in Georgia where its set.
Media coverage of both the film and the events surrounding the film have also been scant. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has only mentioned the film and these events in its blog. That means nothing related to this has been printed. In fact, the biggest coverage has been in area blogs. The conservative blog Peach Pundit ran a series of articles earlier in the year, and SWGA Politics ran a series last year. The local Albany, Georgia television station WALB has said little about the case or the movie even though it centers in their hometown. Their main contribution was in slowing down its release when that station put in an injunction against the movie when it used about 45 seconds worth of clips without receiving written authorization. That dispute was eventually resolved last summer and the movie can now be seen with the clips.
Meanwhile, Hodges has referred to Do No Harm as "propaganda" but has said little beyond that. The filmmaker vigorously challenged this characterization. Shanberg says that she presented the facts as they were based on cooperation of those involved. She says that filmmakers reached out to Hodges but neither he nor his campaign would cooperate. Most of these issues have barely been flushed because there has been scant media attention paid to the film and its events.
That's not due to a lack of evidence. Everything I've said is a matter of public disclosure. That's because both Dr. Bagnato and Charles Rehberg are involved in civil suits against all other parties mentioned. In fact, Peach Pundit included all documents related to the case in their series. So, most Georgians have no idea that this story even exists despite the clear implication it has against both a candidate for Attorney General and for Governor.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Untold Stories of Non Profit Hospitals
Holly Lang, Hospital Accountability Project Manager for Georgia Watch, spends most of her days examing the 990 tax forms of non profit hospitals all throughout Georgia. She also keeps a close watch of events more than one thousand miles away in Springfield, Illinois. Late in 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Provena Covenant Medical Center V the Illinois Department of Revenue. Lang believes the outcome of this case will have reverberations about the way non profits tax status will be treated all over the country.
Provena Medical Center is non profit hospital conglomerate based out of Champaign. It has hospitals all throughout the state of Illinois including much of the Chicagoland area including hospitals in Aurora, Bolingbrook, New Lenox, and Bourbonnais. Much of the expansion occurred throughout the 1990’s and the beginning of this decade. Because Provena was classified as a 501 © 3, it was exempt from paying any property taxes on any of the property they own, including nearly twenty different hospital locations. As such, their expansion deprived much of the state of Illinois of much needed tax revenue. Meanwhile, in 2003, Provena only provided .7% of their totally revenues in charity care. Charity care is defined as medical provided for free or at a reduced cost to those without the financial means to afford the health care. Since their inception, the primary responsibility of non profits in order to earn their non profit status (which exempts them from all taxes: municipal, county and federal) was to provide a sufficient amount of charity care. Lang believes that non profits should strive to make that number 6%, almost ten times what Provena was providing all while making major expansions.
So, in 2003, the Champaign County Board of Review challenged Provena’s property tax exemption. The County argued that Provena was a non profit acting as a for profit hospital. The case has since been heard by the Illinois Department of Revenue, the 4th Circuit, and finally the Illinois Supreme Court late last year and a decision is expected there soon. The case has been championed by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. In short, Provena was accused of being a non profit that acted like a for profit.
Heather O’Donnell of Chicago’s Center for Tax and Budget Accountability is also keeping a close eye on the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court. She agrees with Lang that the decision will reverberate to non profit hospitals all over the country. In fact, the CTBA wrote an amicus brief in this case that largely mirrored the arguments of Madigan.
O’Donnell is in the forefront of the non profit issue in another way. In 2006, she was the lead author of the CBTA’s analysis of 21 Cook County non profit hospitals and the tax exemptions granted and compared it to the charity care provided. Using a method first developed by Harvard professors Nancy Kane and William Wubbenhorst, the study set out to analyze just how much benefit the tax payers were receiving for the tax exemption. That study found that while these 21 hospitals received $325.6 million in tax breaks, they only provided $105.2 million in charitable services. The study was was done again in 2009 and this time the CTBA estimated that these hospitals received $489.5 million in tax exemptions while only providing $175.7 million in charity care. The study estimated that by simply enforcing the exemption so that the level of charity care is equal to the exemption, 47836 more of Cook County’s one million uninsured would receive charity care.
In O’Donnell’s estimation, Cook County, like much of the country, faces two significant problems in enforcing charity care upon non profits. When asked why the CTBA, a watchdog group, and not the government itself did this intensive study, O’Donnell replied “good question”. Governments themselves have never analyzed any non profit hospitals the way the CTBA did in 2006 and 2009. O’Donnell considers the $303.8 million gap to be an abuse of the system. Yet, without this sort of analysis, this abuse can’t even identified let alone rooted out. The CTBA’s landmark study has lead to other watch dog groups like Georgia Watch to commission their own study but as of yet, no government agency itself has done a study.
The other problem that O’Donnell sees are vague laws that define the care non profits are supposed to provide in order to qualify for their tax exempt status. Non profit hospitals have been around since the 1800’s. In their infancy, they were the primary providers for health care for those that couldn’t afford for care on their own. That all changed in 1965 with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid. As it turns out, this fear was unfounded. While nearly 50 million poor folks rely on Medicaid, there still remain nearly that many without health care still eligible for charity care today. At the time, experts predicted that Medicare/Medicaid would make charity care obsolete. As such, in 1969, the IRS created another standard:community benefit. O’Donnell calls this “nebulous” and ill defined. In fact, Provena once argued that simply operating a hospital was itself a community benefit.
The worst problem is that in Illinois none of these activities are quantified. For instance, Provena was singled out because it was only providing .7% of its revenues in charity care. Yet, there’s nothing in law that sets a minimum amount. Provena was flagged because of a unique set of events. Not only was the hospital expanding exponentially but they were doing it all while providing almost no charity care whatsoever. Still, it’s rare that a hospital would abuse the system so flagrantly. Currently Illinois law doesn’t mandate for any minimum amount of either charity care or community benefit. It’s up to government officials to evaluate each hospital on a case by case basis. Without clear guidelines, O’Donnell believes we’ll continue to see abuse in the system. O’Donnell believes it’s possible that the Illinois Supreme Court would set minimum quantities for such things as charity care in their Provena decision. Without clear guidelines, O’Donnell believes there’s no motivation for any hospital to be a for profit.
Chicago area film maker Rebecca Shanberg just got back from Arizona. She attended a screening of her most recent work, Do No Harm at the Sedona Film Festival at the end of February. The themes of that film are entirely rooted in the issues that both Lang and O’Donnell find in analyzing non profit hospitals. That film tracks Albany, Georgia surgeon Dr. John Bagnato and his accountant, Charles Rehberg. Starting in 2003, the two examined the tax returns of more than a hundred non profits all over the country and they were startled to find that most non profits were abusing their non profit status. They found a pattern of exorbitant health care costs, strict enforcement of collections against patients that lacked an ability to pay, massive expansions, all while executives received healthy salaries and these hospitals spent tens of millions on lobbying.
The film focuses on Rehberg and Bagnato’s battle with Phoebe Putney, Albany’s largest non profit. After the two sent out anonymously a series of faxes critical of the hospital, they faced a $60 million civil suit and were charged repeatedly criminally. Both believe this was done as retaliation for their whistle blowing. Holly Lang has plenty of experience with Phoebe Putney. In 2007, she lead an analysis for Georgia Watch to analyze how well Phoebe Putney was living up to its obligation as a non profit. She found that health care costs in Dougherty County (where Albany is located) increased by 17.6% in 2005 while the national average was 7.6%. According to the Coalition for Competitive Health Care, Phoebe Putney’s aggressive pricing is a major factor for the excessive costs. One plant owner described it like this, “it’s basically a health care tax to do business in Albany, because the health care costs are so far above the average for the nation and the Southeast”. Georgia Watch hosted two screenings of Do No Harm in October. One of the first screenings of the movie was held in Chicago in May of 2009 at the Museum of Contemporary Art where Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan introduced the film.
While Shanberg, O’Donnell, and Lang have seen up close the crisis in non profit hospital care, the issue has received scant attention even as the health care debate has raged into its second year. Just one section of the Senate bill, Section 9007, even addresses non profits. All three believe this is unfortunate as they all believe the non profit health care system is broken and in serious need of reform. Lang believes that the nations 1300 non profit hospitals receive tax exemptions of roughly $35 billion yearly. Since there’s scant studies of the matter, no one can say just how much charitable services these hospitals perform to earn these exemptions. O’Donnell is even more stark. Unless there is strict oversight, clear rules, and enforcement, “there’s simply no reason for any hospital to be for profit” because in the current environment, like it’s alleged against Provena, far too many non profits “act as for profit”. With their advantageous tax benefits, that simply gives them a competitive advantage over any for profit.
Provena Medical Center is non profit hospital conglomerate based out of Champaign. It has hospitals all throughout the state of Illinois including much of the Chicagoland area including hospitals in Aurora, Bolingbrook, New Lenox, and Bourbonnais. Much of the expansion occurred throughout the 1990’s and the beginning of this decade. Because Provena was classified as a 501 © 3, it was exempt from paying any property taxes on any of the property they own, including nearly twenty different hospital locations. As such, their expansion deprived much of the state of Illinois of much needed tax revenue. Meanwhile, in 2003, Provena only provided .7% of their totally revenues in charity care. Charity care is defined as medical provided for free or at a reduced cost to those without the financial means to afford the health care. Since their inception, the primary responsibility of non profits in order to earn their non profit status (which exempts them from all taxes: municipal, county and federal) was to provide a sufficient amount of charity care. Lang believes that non profits should strive to make that number 6%, almost ten times what Provena was providing all while making major expansions.
So, in 2003, the Champaign County Board of Review challenged Provena’s property tax exemption. The County argued that Provena was a non profit acting as a for profit hospital. The case has since been heard by the Illinois Department of Revenue, the 4th Circuit, and finally the Illinois Supreme Court late last year and a decision is expected there soon. The case has been championed by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. In short, Provena was accused of being a non profit that acted like a for profit.
Heather O’Donnell of Chicago’s Center for Tax and Budget Accountability is also keeping a close eye on the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court. She agrees with Lang that the decision will reverberate to non profit hospitals all over the country. In fact, the CTBA wrote an amicus brief in this case that largely mirrored the arguments of Madigan.
O’Donnell is in the forefront of the non profit issue in another way. In 2006, she was the lead author of the CBTA’s analysis of 21 Cook County non profit hospitals and the tax exemptions granted and compared it to the charity care provided. Using a method first developed by Harvard professors Nancy Kane and William Wubbenhorst, the study set out to analyze just how much benefit the tax payers were receiving for the tax exemption. That study found that while these 21 hospitals received $325.6 million in tax breaks, they only provided $105.2 million in charitable services. The study was was done again in 2009 and this time the CTBA estimated that these hospitals received $489.5 million in tax exemptions while only providing $175.7 million in charity care. The study estimated that by simply enforcing the exemption so that the level of charity care is equal to the exemption, 47836 more of Cook County’s one million uninsured would receive charity care.
In O’Donnell’s estimation, Cook County, like much of the country, faces two significant problems in enforcing charity care upon non profits. When asked why the CTBA, a watchdog group, and not the government itself did this intensive study, O’Donnell replied “good question”. Governments themselves have never analyzed any non profit hospitals the way the CTBA did in 2006 and 2009. O’Donnell considers the $303.8 million gap to be an abuse of the system. Yet, without this sort of analysis, this abuse can’t even identified let alone rooted out. The CTBA’s landmark study has lead to other watch dog groups like Georgia Watch to commission their own study but as of yet, no government agency itself has done a study.
The other problem that O’Donnell sees are vague laws that define the care non profits are supposed to provide in order to qualify for their tax exempt status. Non profit hospitals have been around since the 1800’s. In their infancy, they were the primary providers for health care for those that couldn’t afford for care on their own. That all changed in 1965 with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid. As it turns out, this fear was unfounded. While nearly 50 million poor folks rely on Medicaid, there still remain nearly that many without health care still eligible for charity care today. At the time, experts predicted that Medicare/Medicaid would make charity care obsolete. As such, in 1969, the IRS created another standard:community benefit. O’Donnell calls this “nebulous” and ill defined. In fact, Provena once argued that simply operating a hospital was itself a community benefit.
The worst problem is that in Illinois none of these activities are quantified. For instance, Provena was singled out because it was only providing .7% of its revenues in charity care. Yet, there’s nothing in law that sets a minimum amount. Provena was flagged because of a unique set of events. Not only was the hospital expanding exponentially but they were doing it all while providing almost no charity care whatsoever. Still, it’s rare that a hospital would abuse the system so flagrantly. Currently Illinois law doesn’t mandate for any minimum amount of either charity care or community benefit. It’s up to government officials to evaluate each hospital on a case by case basis. Without clear guidelines, O’Donnell believes we’ll continue to see abuse in the system. O’Donnell believes it’s possible that the Illinois Supreme Court would set minimum quantities for such things as charity care in their Provena decision. Without clear guidelines, O’Donnell believes there’s no motivation for any hospital to be a for profit.
Chicago area film maker Rebecca Shanberg just got back from Arizona. She attended a screening of her most recent work, Do No Harm at the Sedona Film Festival at the end of February. The themes of that film are entirely rooted in the issues that both Lang and O’Donnell find in analyzing non profit hospitals. That film tracks Albany, Georgia surgeon Dr. John Bagnato and his accountant, Charles Rehberg. Starting in 2003, the two examined the tax returns of more than a hundred non profits all over the country and they were startled to find that most non profits were abusing their non profit status. They found a pattern of exorbitant health care costs, strict enforcement of collections against patients that lacked an ability to pay, massive expansions, all while executives received healthy salaries and these hospitals spent tens of millions on lobbying.
The film focuses on Rehberg and Bagnato’s battle with Phoebe Putney, Albany’s largest non profit. After the two sent out anonymously a series of faxes critical of the hospital, they faced a $60 million civil suit and were charged repeatedly criminally. Both believe this was done as retaliation for their whistle blowing. Holly Lang has plenty of experience with Phoebe Putney. In 2007, she lead an analysis for Georgia Watch to analyze how well Phoebe Putney was living up to its obligation as a non profit. She found that health care costs in Dougherty County (where Albany is located) increased by 17.6% in 2005 while the national average was 7.6%. According to the Coalition for Competitive Health Care, Phoebe Putney’s aggressive pricing is a major factor for the excessive costs. One plant owner described it like this, “it’s basically a health care tax to do business in Albany, because the health care costs are so far above the average for the nation and the Southeast”. Georgia Watch hosted two screenings of Do No Harm in October. One of the first screenings of the movie was held in Chicago in May of 2009 at the Museum of Contemporary Art where Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan introduced the film.
While Shanberg, O’Donnell, and Lang have seen up close the crisis in non profit hospital care, the issue has received scant attention even as the health care debate has raged into its second year. Just one section of the Senate bill, Section 9007, even addresses non profits. All three believe this is unfortunate as they all believe the non profit health care system is broken and in serious need of reform. Lang believes that the nations 1300 non profit hospitals receive tax exemptions of roughly $35 billion yearly. Since there’s scant studies of the matter, no one can say just how much charitable services these hospitals perform to earn these exemptions. O’Donnell is even more stark. Unless there is strict oversight, clear rules, and enforcement, “there’s simply no reason for any hospital to be for profit” because in the current environment, like it’s alleged against Provena, far too many non profits “act as for profit”. With their advantageous tax benefits, that simply gives them a competitive advantage over any for profit.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Update on Ken Hodges
Last summer, I featured a series of stories on Ken Hodges, who's running for Attorney General of Georgia.
The Georgia blog, Peach Pundit, has published a three part series. Part III is here. (one and two are linked there)
The only question after reading all this is how Hodges can continue running. That's a question for the media in Georgia.
The Georgia blog, Peach Pundit, has published a three part series. Part III is here. (one and two are linked there)
The only question after reading all this is how Hodges can continue running. That's a question for the media in Georgia.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Point Counter Point Weekly Addresses
This week's presidential address was all about the UN and G20 meetings that just took place. You gotta hand it to the president. He immediately said that in those meetings the world took "tangible steps to meet the world's challenges". He the spent the better part of the next four minutes being as vague as ever. He said that the world agreed to a series of reforms to make sure that boom and bust economies wouldn't occur anymore. What those reforms were though he didn't say? He touted a non enforceable resolution in which the Security Council agreed to destroy all loose nuclear material in four years. He also touted the meeting between Abu Mazen and Bibi Netanyahu in which the two agreed that they should keep speaking and not much else.
The president also said the world was "united" in making sure that Iran would not get a nuclear weapon. This followed the revelation that Iran has a second nuclear reactor that appears to only have a military purpose. The world seems to always be "united", in words that is, about the fact that Iran can't get a nuclear weapon. Yet, the world doesn't seem to do too much with that unity and that frankly goes back to the Bush administration and before that. The only tangible thing that President Obama said was an agreement to cut $300 billion in world wide subsidies for fossil fuels. Beyond that, the entire address was full of nice sounding but nebulous words like "reform", "unity", and "global agreement", and frankly none of them meant anything of substance. If there was a tangible step made toward world peace I missed it in this address because all I heard was vague soaring rhetoric.
Johnny Isakson, senator from Georgia, delivered the Republicans' response. His address focused on health care and we heard the exact same talking points we've heard from the Republicans throughout this debate. He slammed the Democrats plan as costing too much, being a government takeover, and being a burden on the states. He repeated the reforms the Republicans are for portability, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, and tort reform.
Isakson slammed the Baucus proposal as essentially more of the same. He said the Baucus bill paid "lip service" to tort reform while it was yet another expansion of government. He also slammed the Democrats for demonizing the town hall attendees and for trying to put a gag order on Humana. There was nothing new here but since the Republicans are winning the debate there really didn't need to be.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Blowing the Whistle: The Retaliation Against Charles Rehberg and Dr. John Bagnato
After nearly two years of investigating non profit hospitals, Albany, Georgia surgeon Dr. John Bagnato and his accountant, Charles Rehberg, were convinced that they had uncovered systemic corruption in the non profit hospital system. While their investigation encompassed the non profit health care system as a whole, its nexis began at the local non profit hospital, Phoebe Putney. The two of them were certain that they found irrefutable evidence that Putney was making hundreds of millions each year, charging unnecessarily high fees to their poor patients, all while their executives enjoyed handsome compensation and the hospital paid no taxes because of its non profit status. In February of 2004, the two of them decided to get this message out. In that month, on multiple occasions, Charles Rehberg ANONYMOUSLY sent out faxes to local business leaders and politicians.
Word eventually got back to the powers that be at Phoebe Putney. The hospital reached out to the local District Attorney, Ken Hodges. Hodges began investigating the source of the faxes. In order to subpoena records from local phone companies like Bell South, Hodges claimed that a grand jury had convened. In this way, he intimidated these local phone companies into providing private information on Charles Rehberg. This was all totally untrue. Hodges never convened a grand jury because he wasn't investigating a criminal matter. He was, acting as an agent of the state, investigating a private civil matter on behalf of one party, Phoebe Putney, and he was in fact lying in order to get documents for the investigation.
While it took a matter of weeks for Hodges and his investigators to figure out the source of the faxes, nothing was done with the information yet. In the meantime, Rehberg and Bagnato reached out to class action attorney Dickie Scruggs. They convinced Scruggs to file a class action law suit on behalf of the indigent against the non profit hospital system. The lawsuit was in the final stages of being filed in September when Phoeb Putney filed a $60 million civil lawsuit against Charles Rehberg. Phoebe Putney called in the press and held a press conference to announce their claim which included such charges defamation of character and harrassment. The suit at this point was only against Rehberg at this point because it was he that actually sent the faxes.
At this point, Dr. Bagnato was the Chief of Surgery at Albany Surgical which operated out of Phoebe Putney. Because Rehberg had sent these faxes on both their behalf, Dr. Bagnato felt he should be on the suit. He also felt that if their chief surgeon was included on this suit, that would put the hospital back on its heels so to speak. As such, prior to the case reaching court, Dr. Bagnato filed to include himself on the defense. As such, he was added as a defendent. In Georgia, there is a tough anti SLAPP law (Strategic Legislation Against Public Persona). This is a law that protects those that face lawsuits merely as a way to stop an individual from continuing a public campaign against another entity, like a whistle blower. In March, Rehberg's attorneys filed this order. Phoebe Putney had ten days to respond. Their attorneys missed the deadline and as a result the case against Rehberg and Bagnato was dismissed.
At about this time, a criminal investigation of both Bagnato and Rehberg was started. Because the evidence that began this investigation was initially collected by Hodges in his investigation of the civil claim, he was forced to recuse himself. The Attorney General of the state, Thurgood Baker, stepped in and chose Kelly Burke a District Attorney from a near district.
In December of 2005, Dr. Bagnato received a phone call from a reporter at WALB, a local television station. The reporter informed Bagnato that he and Charles Rehberg were about to be charged with burglary, aggravated assault and breaking and entering. Dr. Bagnato was stunned. He asked who's home he was charged with breaking into. The home was of Jim Hotz, a member of the board of Phoebe Putney. The next day, upon the advice of his attorney, Dr. Bagnato turned himself into local police. He was booked, fingerprinted, and had his mugshot taken. Over the next few months, the case was dismissed and refiled because technicalities caused it to be thrown out. Finally, in May of 2006, the case went before a judge for an initial hearing. It was immediately thrown out because it lacked specificity. In layman's terms, the who, what, where, how and why were missing from the charges. In other words, the prosecutor, Kelly Burke, after nearly two years, four times filing charges, couldn't explain to the court when these two broke in, how they broke in, and what they did after they broke in.
As it turned out, these charges were totally bogus. All of it came from the words of Phoebe Putney investigators. There was no police report of this alleged incident and in fact the police never investigated the matter. The investigator for the District Attorney, James Paulk never spoke with Hotz. In fact, Hotz later testified that neither Bagnato or Rehberg had ever been in his home. As such, not only were these charges made up out of whole cloth but prosecutors couldn't even figure out how to make them sound believeable. (as such they lacked specificity) The whole thing was so absurd that Bagnato and his lawyers struggled not to break out in laughter during the proceedings as Burke presented what amounted to legal nonsense. While the court proceedings were amusing, it culminated a legal bill of six figures for Dr. Bagnato.
At about the time the criminal charges were being, Phoebe Putney began proceedings for medical peer review against Dr. Bagnato. Multiple nurses accused Dr. Bagnato of being tyrannical and difficult to work with and such the medical charge was that he was a "disruptive physician". In one case cited, Dr. Bagnato was late for case and when questioned about his tardiness Dr. Bagnato responded by saying, "what are you gonna do indict me?". (referring to the ongoing criminal case I just wrote about) Because nothing cited could be linked to any sub par patient care, the medical peer review eventually went nowhere and was dismissed as well. Though, again, Dr. Bagnato was forced to spend hundreds of hours to defend himself.
In July of 2007, Dr. Bagnato asked for and received a change in his status at Phoebe Putney. Instead of having hospital privileges he merely was a consulting physician. In the next year and a half, he would only work at the hospital an average of once every two months. Because of the changing landscape of insurance, Dr. Bagnato felt, in December of 2008, that he needed to get full privileges back at Phoebe Putney. (Phoebe Putney is by far the biggest hospital in Albany and it has the most diverse set of medical resources in the area) At this point, the administration again began a medical peer review proceedings against Dr. Bagnato for being a "disruptive physician". Because this review is still ongoing, Dr. Bagnato wouldn't comment any further on the matter.
Conclusion:
Everything I just relayed has been reported in one capacity or another in the local and state media. In fact, it is now the subject of the documentary Do No Harm. As such, both Phoebe Putney and Ken Hodges have received a plethora of bad press. So, why did they pursue all of this? According to the watch dog group, Georgia Watch, the billing practices of Phoebe Putney have improved over the last couple years after this came out but they still have a long way to go. The hospital continues to make hundreds of millions yearly and, despite the bad press, it continues to operate in largely the same manner as before Bagnato and Rehberg went public. No one else at the hospital, however, has stepped forward from hospital staff to back up Dr. Bagnato.
When a whistle blower steps forward and goes public with corruption, the target of the corruption can and will survive if they limit the damage to one or a few whistle blowers. That's why whistle blowers are almost always the target of significant retaliation. The retaliation isn't for the benefit of the whistleblower but rather for the benefit of other potential whistle blowers. That's exactly what happened here. Dr. Bagnato faced civil, criminal and professional retaliation in the aftermath of his stepping forward to blow the whistle. The reason that I view whistle blowers so heroically isn't because they step forward and report corruption. That's simply the right thing to do. The reason it takes so much courage is that blowing the whistle means that you will face retaliation and that retaliation will be significant. The point is to break the whistle blower. By doing so, a message is sent to anyone else that dares do the same. On top of this, by breaking the whistle blower, that same whistle blower loses credibility. People lose their jobs, they get kicked out of school, and they even get prosecuted. That's what happens to whistle blowers.
Most shameful is this. Thurgood Baker is now running for Governor of Georgia. Ken Hodges is now running for Attorney General. Kelly Burke continues in the same position of District Attorney. Both have legitimate chances to win even though there is absolutely no doubt that all three are corrupt. There is no other way to view it. They pursued a case even though all three knew it was fabricated. Worse yet, they didn't even fabricate it well. Now, one may be the next governor of Georgia and the other maybe the next Attorney General. Potentially, the next Chief Executive and Chief Law Enforcement officer of the state of Georgia will both be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, corrupt. If that happens, it will be to the unacceptable shame and apathy of both the voters and media of Georgia.
For the full and inside story of the making of the documentary Do No Harm check out this link.
Word eventually got back to the powers that be at Phoebe Putney. The hospital reached out to the local District Attorney, Ken Hodges. Hodges began investigating the source of the faxes. In order to subpoena records from local phone companies like Bell South, Hodges claimed that a grand jury had convened. In this way, he intimidated these local phone companies into providing private information on Charles Rehberg. This was all totally untrue. Hodges never convened a grand jury because he wasn't investigating a criminal matter. He was, acting as an agent of the state, investigating a private civil matter on behalf of one party, Phoebe Putney, and he was in fact lying in order to get documents for the investigation.
While it took a matter of weeks for Hodges and his investigators to figure out the source of the faxes, nothing was done with the information yet. In the meantime, Rehberg and Bagnato reached out to class action attorney Dickie Scruggs. They convinced Scruggs to file a class action law suit on behalf of the indigent against the non profit hospital system. The lawsuit was in the final stages of being filed in September when Phoeb Putney filed a $60 million civil lawsuit against Charles Rehberg. Phoebe Putney called in the press and held a press conference to announce their claim which included such charges defamation of character and harrassment. The suit at this point was only against Rehberg at this point because it was he that actually sent the faxes.
At this point, Dr. Bagnato was the Chief of Surgery at Albany Surgical which operated out of Phoebe Putney. Because Rehberg had sent these faxes on both their behalf, Dr. Bagnato felt he should be on the suit. He also felt that if their chief surgeon was included on this suit, that would put the hospital back on its heels so to speak. As such, prior to the case reaching court, Dr. Bagnato filed to include himself on the defense. As such, he was added as a defendent. In Georgia, there is a tough anti SLAPP law (Strategic Legislation Against Public Persona). This is a law that protects those that face lawsuits merely as a way to stop an individual from continuing a public campaign against another entity, like a whistle blower. In March, Rehberg's attorneys filed this order. Phoebe Putney had ten days to respond. Their attorneys missed the deadline and as a result the case against Rehberg and Bagnato was dismissed.
At about this time, a criminal investigation of both Bagnato and Rehberg was started. Because the evidence that began this investigation was initially collected by Hodges in his investigation of the civil claim, he was forced to recuse himself. The Attorney General of the state, Thurgood Baker, stepped in and chose Kelly Burke a District Attorney from a near district.
In December of 2005, Dr. Bagnato received a phone call from a reporter at WALB, a local television station. The reporter informed Bagnato that he and Charles Rehberg were about to be charged with burglary, aggravated assault and breaking and entering. Dr. Bagnato was stunned. He asked who's home he was charged with breaking into. The home was of Jim Hotz, a member of the board of Phoebe Putney. The next day, upon the advice of his attorney, Dr. Bagnato turned himself into local police. He was booked, fingerprinted, and had his mugshot taken. Over the next few months, the case was dismissed and refiled because technicalities caused it to be thrown out. Finally, in May of 2006, the case went before a judge for an initial hearing. It was immediately thrown out because it lacked specificity. In layman's terms, the who, what, where, how and why were missing from the charges. In other words, the prosecutor, Kelly Burke, after nearly two years, four times filing charges, couldn't explain to the court when these two broke in, how they broke in, and what they did after they broke in.
As it turned out, these charges were totally bogus. All of it came from the words of Phoebe Putney investigators. There was no police report of this alleged incident and in fact the police never investigated the matter. The investigator for the District Attorney, James Paulk never spoke with Hotz. In fact, Hotz later testified that neither Bagnato or Rehberg had ever been in his home. As such, not only were these charges made up out of whole cloth but prosecutors couldn't even figure out how to make them sound believeable. (as such they lacked specificity) The whole thing was so absurd that Bagnato and his lawyers struggled not to break out in laughter during the proceedings as Burke presented what amounted to legal nonsense. While the court proceedings were amusing, it culminated a legal bill of six figures for Dr. Bagnato.
At about the time the criminal charges were being, Phoebe Putney began proceedings for medical peer review against Dr. Bagnato. Multiple nurses accused Dr. Bagnato of being tyrannical and difficult to work with and such the medical charge was that he was a "disruptive physician". In one case cited, Dr. Bagnato was late for case and when questioned about his tardiness Dr. Bagnato responded by saying, "what are you gonna do indict me?". (referring to the ongoing criminal case I just wrote about) Because nothing cited could be linked to any sub par patient care, the medical peer review eventually went nowhere and was dismissed as well. Though, again, Dr. Bagnato was forced to spend hundreds of hours to defend himself.
In July of 2007, Dr. Bagnato asked for and received a change in his status at Phoebe Putney. Instead of having hospital privileges he merely was a consulting physician. In the next year and a half, he would only work at the hospital an average of once every two months. Because of the changing landscape of insurance, Dr. Bagnato felt, in December of 2008, that he needed to get full privileges back at Phoebe Putney. (Phoebe Putney is by far the biggest hospital in Albany and it has the most diverse set of medical resources in the area) At this point, the administration again began a medical peer review proceedings against Dr. Bagnato for being a "disruptive physician". Because this review is still ongoing, Dr. Bagnato wouldn't comment any further on the matter.
Conclusion:
Everything I just relayed has been reported in one capacity or another in the local and state media. In fact, it is now the subject of the documentary Do No Harm. As such, both Phoebe Putney and Ken Hodges have received a plethora of bad press. So, why did they pursue all of this? According to the watch dog group, Georgia Watch, the billing practices of Phoebe Putney have improved over the last couple years after this came out but they still have a long way to go. The hospital continues to make hundreds of millions yearly and, despite the bad press, it continues to operate in largely the same manner as before Bagnato and Rehberg went public. No one else at the hospital, however, has stepped forward from hospital staff to back up Dr. Bagnato.
When a whistle blower steps forward and goes public with corruption, the target of the corruption can and will survive if they limit the damage to one or a few whistle blowers. That's why whistle blowers are almost always the target of significant retaliation. The retaliation isn't for the benefit of the whistleblower but rather for the benefit of other potential whistle blowers. That's exactly what happened here. Dr. Bagnato faced civil, criminal and professional retaliation in the aftermath of his stepping forward to blow the whistle. The reason that I view whistle blowers so heroically isn't because they step forward and report corruption. That's simply the right thing to do. The reason it takes so much courage is that blowing the whistle means that you will face retaliation and that retaliation will be significant. The point is to break the whistle blower. By doing so, a message is sent to anyone else that dares do the same. On top of this, by breaking the whistle blower, that same whistle blower loses credibility. People lose their jobs, they get kicked out of school, and they even get prosecuted. That's what happens to whistle blowers.
Most shameful is this. Thurgood Baker is now running for Governor of Georgia. Ken Hodges is now running for Attorney General. Kelly Burke continues in the same position of District Attorney. Both have legitimate chances to win even though there is absolutely no doubt that all three are corrupt. There is no other way to view it. They pursued a case even though all three knew it was fabricated. Worse yet, they didn't even fabricate it well. Now, one may be the next governor of Georgia and the other maybe the next Attorney General. Potentially, the next Chief Executive and Chief Law Enforcement officer of the state of Georgia will both be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, corrupt. If that happens, it will be to the unacceptable shame and apathy of both the voters and media of Georgia.
For the full and inside story of the making of the documentary Do No Harm check out this link.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Inside Story of Do No Harm II
It appears that this will not be all that we will see of the film Do No Harm. The film, which chronicles the story of whistle blowers John Bagnato and Charles Rehberg, had been stalled prior to release due to a dispute over scenes used in the film that originally aired on newscasts on the Albany, Georgia station WALB. I received an email from Jim Wilcox, station manager of WALB, this morning letting me know that the dispute has been settled and the station is releasing its footage. So, the movie can be shown around the country as planned. Look for it near you.
For the whole inside story behind the movie, and the election it might affect, please read the Inside Story of Do No Harm.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The Inside Story of Do No Harm
Back in 2004, there was a documentary that was supposed to change the direction of an election. That documentary was Fahrenheit 911 and while it made loads of money for it's film maker, Michael Moore, it had absolutely no effect on the election. In 2010, another documentary may also have a real effect on another election. This time, in an ironic twist of fate, this documentary may wind up being seen by absolutely no one. The name of the documentary is Do No Harm and the election is the election for Attorney General in the state of Georgia. Here is a Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, introducing the film in Chicago.
For now, that's all anyone will see of this movie. That's because a local television station, WALB, from Albany, Georgia has filed a cease and desist order against the filmmakers and so for now the film isn't being shown anywhere. The cease and desist order stems from footage used in the film that originated in news broadcasts by WALB. Since they aired originally on WALB, the station has licensing rights to the footage. When the filmmakers asked for permission to use footage first broadcast on WALB, the station denied their request because they have a strict policy that disallows rebroadcast of their footage by any non news entity, like a documentary film. So, for now at least, the movie isn't being shown anywhere.
The topics explored in the film are very relevant to debates today. The two principles in the film, surgeon John Bagnato and accountant Charles Rehberg, investigated the tax returns of hundreds of non profit hospitals. They found that most of these non profits, which enjoy tax exempt status, were in fact flush with cash. Often, they were charging their patients exorbitant fees, and while their non profit status mandated that the hospitals give back to the community at large, Dr. Bagnato and Mr. Rehberg found that many times these hospitals were lining their own pockets. In other words, the purpose of their tax exempt status is to allow them to use their tax savings to give back to the community in the form of affordable health care especially for the poor. Many times these non profit hospitals charged very large fees, enjoyed hundreds of millions of dollars of yearly profits, and their top level managers enjoyed very comfortable salaries. (in fact, I separately discovered one example of this sort non profit in the Washington area) This is relevant because thousands of non profits save hundreds of billions yearly in taxes, and if they are acting as for profit hospitals, then the government can find all the money it needs for universal health care by simply taxing them in the manner they are acting.
The story starts in 2001. That's when Dr. Bagnato, a general surgeon, first attempted to open up a clinic for ambulatory surgery along with other general surgeons in his work group. He found out that according to Department of Community Health rules general surgeons weren't allowed to open up clinics. The so called "logic" for this rule was that general surgery is not a specialty. After all, the title GENERAL implies a broad scope. Dr. Bagnato found this rule peculiar and so he investigated. He found out that one hospital in particular was responsible for swaying the DCH into instituting this rule, Phoebe Putney. Phoebe Putney was the one massive hospital in Albany and one could say they had an effective monopoly in the area.
At this point, Dr. Bagnato felt he he was unraveling a much bigger story. As such, he reached out to his account, Charles Rehberg. He and Rehberg began examining the tax records of not only Phoebe Putney but hundreds of non profits all over the country. The non profit status of hospitals mandates that they file the IRS tax form 990 which is then made public. What they found was a disturbing pattern of non profits charging unreasonably high fees, often being flushed with cash in the hundreds of millions and even billions, and quite often their top brass were paid very handsomely for their services. With regard to Phoebe Putney, they found that not only was the hospital charging high fees but they were able to hide these charges through a series of very complicated accounting maneuvers that even accountants themselves have difficulty understand. Here's how Dr. Bagnato described what Phoebe Putney did to me.
Soon enough, Phoebe Putney caught wind of the anonymous faxes. At this point, they reached out to the local district attorney, Ken Hodges. Phoebe Putney was prepared to file civil charges against whoever it was that sent out the faxes. Keep in mind that at this point this was all a civil matter. As such, the District Attorney should have absolutely no jurisdiction of the matter. Not only did Hodges begin to investigate who the sender of the faxes were but he even eventually subpoenaed phone records under the guise that a grand jury was created in order to file criminal charges. This was of course non sense since this was still a civil matter. Furthermore, private phone and email records of Charles Rehberg were then sold by Hodges' office to Phoebe Putney.
In the meantime, Bagnato and Rehberg reached out to class action lawyer Dick Scruggs. (who himself later found trouble with the law) They convinced Scruggs to file a class action lawsuit against non profit hospital on behalf of the uninsured. At this point, the media attention of Bagnato and Rehberg's actions caught the attention of the filmmakers at the Kindling Group. The idea for the film Do No Harm was born. While Rehberg and Bagnato investigated hundreds of hospitals, the film turned it's focus mostly on Phoebe Putney. (it should be noted that the film maker characterized the film as one sided but that's because Phoebe Putney refused to cooperate with its making)
The surest way to contain a whistle blower is to discredit them. Nothing discredits the credibility of anyone, especially a whistle blower, more than the specter of criminal charges, indictments, and convictions. Over the next two plus years, that's exactly what D.A. Ken Hodges attempted to impose on Rehberg and Bagnato. Both were arrested, fingerprinted, and filmed. Both were eventually charged with burglary, aggravated assault, and stalking. They were each charged multiple times. All the charges were totally bogus and eventually thrown out. In fact, according to court records Hodges took an investigation out of the local police department because, according to him, there were problems in the police department. Then, Hodges and his chief investigator, James Paulk, began an investigation into an alleged robbery of the home of Dr. James Hotz by Charles Rehberg. The only witness to testify at the grand jury for all crimes related to this burglary was Paulk. In fact, Rehberg had never been to the home of Dr. Hotz. Dr. Hotz never filed any police report of any burglary. Furthermore, Paulk eventually admitted under oath that he never gathered any evidence indicating that there was a burglary. In other words, according to these court documents, all subsequent criminal charges filed by D.A. Hodges against both Rehberg and Bagnato were bogus and nothing more than an orchestrated smear by the D.A. against these two whistle blowers.
Now, we've reached present day. In the last two weeks, the watch dog group, Georgia Watch, was promoting a screening of the film, Do No Harm. They recently also received a cease and desist order. The order was filed by Lin Wood, a friend and campaign contributor of Ken Hodges. The cease and desist order was filed on behalf of Phoebe Putney. It related to Georgia Watch's use of the word CORRUPTION. The word corruption was actually used by the filmmakers in describing the film for promotional purposes, and Georgia Watch was merely using the film's tag line. Still, the word has since been taken down from all promotional material related to the film.
Furthermore, for about the last year, Ken Hodges has worked at Baudino Law Group in Atlanta. In fact, the campaign is being run out of that office. The law group didn't have an Atlanta office until Hodges arrived there, and their main, and possibly only, client is Phoebe Putney. Also, the proprietor of the Baudino Law Group is facing ethics charges from the legal authority back in Des Moines where the group has its main office.
Finally, a source informed me that the television station, WALB, didn't act on its own in filing the cease and desist order. In fact, the campaign of Ken Hodges contacted the station prior to them filing it and suggested as much. It should be noted that Hodges wife, Melissa, (who works under her maiden name Kill) worked for WALB. I attempted to confirm this revelation with both the Hodges campaign as well as WALB and repeated phone calls and emails were not returned. The film continues to be in limbo. Ken Hodges continues to run for Attorney General of Georgia. Both Dr. Bagnato and Mr. Rehberg continue in their chosen employment and they both have civil law suits currently making their way through the court system against, among others, Ken Hodges.
Update: Tom at SWGA Politics (Southwest Georgia) reports that the wife of Jim Wilcox, station manager at WALB, contributed $500 to Ken Hodges campaign. Furthermore, Hodges wife, upon leaving WALB, took a job at Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital.
After this piece was originally published, Jim Wilcox, station manager at WALB, contacted me via email to categorically deny that anyone from the Hodges campaign was in contact with them regarding the cease and desist order. He made clear that this was strictly a matter of copyright. It should be noted that the station is well within their rights to protect their copyrights, and no one doubts that the station is well within their legal rigths to protect its trademark.
For now, that's all anyone will see of this movie. That's because a local television station, WALB, from Albany, Georgia has filed a cease and desist order against the filmmakers and so for now the film isn't being shown anywhere. The cease and desist order stems from footage used in the film that originated in news broadcasts by WALB. Since they aired originally on WALB, the station has licensing rights to the footage. When the filmmakers asked for permission to use footage first broadcast on WALB, the station denied their request because they have a strict policy that disallows rebroadcast of their footage by any non news entity, like a documentary film. So, for now at least, the movie isn't being shown anywhere.
The topics explored in the film are very relevant to debates today. The two principles in the film, surgeon John Bagnato and accountant Charles Rehberg, investigated the tax returns of hundreds of non profit hospitals. They found that most of these non profits, which enjoy tax exempt status, were in fact flush with cash. Often, they were charging their patients exorbitant fees, and while their non profit status mandated that the hospitals give back to the community at large, Dr. Bagnato and Mr. Rehberg found that many times these hospitals were lining their own pockets. In other words, the purpose of their tax exempt status is to allow them to use their tax savings to give back to the community in the form of affordable health care especially for the poor. Many times these non profit hospitals charged very large fees, enjoyed hundreds of millions of dollars of yearly profits, and their top level managers enjoyed very comfortable salaries. (in fact, I separately discovered one example of this sort non profit in the Washington area) This is relevant because thousands of non profits save hundreds of billions yearly in taxes, and if they are acting as for profit hospitals, then the government can find all the money it needs for universal health care by simply taxing them in the manner they are acting.
The story starts in 2001. That's when Dr. Bagnato, a general surgeon, first attempted to open up a clinic for ambulatory surgery along with other general surgeons in his work group. He found out that according to Department of Community Health rules general surgeons weren't allowed to open up clinics. The so called "logic" for this rule was that general surgery is not a specialty. After all, the title GENERAL implies a broad scope. Dr. Bagnato found this rule peculiar and so he investigated. He found out that one hospital in particular was responsible for swaying the DCH into instituting this rule, Phoebe Putney. Phoebe Putney was the one massive hospital in Albany and one could say they had an effective monopoly in the area.
At this point, Dr. Bagnato felt he he was unraveling a much bigger story. As such, he reached out to his account, Charles Rehberg. He and Rehberg began examining the tax records of not only Phoebe Putney but hundreds of non profits all over the country. The non profit status of hospitals mandates that they file the IRS tax form 990 which is then made public. What they found was a disturbing pattern of non profits charging unreasonably high fees, often being flushed with cash in the hundreds of millions and even billions, and quite often their top brass were paid very handsomely for their services. With regard to Phoebe Putney, they found that not only was the hospital charging high fees but they were able to hide these charges through a series of very complicated accounting maneuvers that even accountants themselves have difficulty understand. Here's how Dr. Bagnato described what Phoebe Putney did to me.
All hospitals have a charge master, it's a list of all services, devices, drugs etc that it sells. This chargemasteris hugely inflated, enough to make a corrupt defense contractor blush. So when the hospital sits down to contract with a payer (insurance company) it will give discounts off of chargemaster prices, just like the oriental rugstore that raises prices just before it is forever going out of business.Discounts off charges is the main way hospitals negotiate contracts, they may call it something else, but it always goes back to that calculation.Costs to the consumers are, therefore not related to the unrealistic chargemaster prices, but really related to the degree of the discounts hospitals give to insurance companies. These costs are not published, can not be located in any database, but are costs that are absorbed into the local economy. Here in Albany, the non-profit, Phoebe, has 85 to 90% of the market share because it has the CON for OB and cardiac. No insurance company can have much of a product without Phoebe. So Phoebe has no need to discount and gives piddling low discounts. As a result, when we pooled the local industry data on their health care cost outlays, theirs was the highest in their entire North American operations, that in a small southern town where the costs should be lower.In fact, Dr. Bagnato pointed out that one reason why it was so difficult to notice just how well Phoebe Putney is doing, along with many other non profits, is precisely because all of these things are so complicated. (The implication here is massive because if you believe Dr. Bagnato, you may have yourself a microcosm of an explanation for why our health care costs are so out of control) Once they discovered just how much the hospital was making, they decided to take the next step. Sometime in 2004, Charles Rehberg anonymously blasted faxes to local businesses and politicians summarizing what they figured out about the cost structure that Phoebe Putney was creating to insurance providers.
Soon enough, Phoebe Putney caught wind of the anonymous faxes. At this point, they reached out to the local district attorney, Ken Hodges. Phoebe Putney was prepared to file civil charges against whoever it was that sent out the faxes. Keep in mind that at this point this was all a civil matter. As such, the District Attorney should have absolutely no jurisdiction of the matter. Not only did Hodges begin to investigate who the sender of the faxes were but he even eventually subpoenaed phone records under the guise that a grand jury was created in order to file criminal charges. This was of course non sense since this was still a civil matter. Furthermore, private phone and email records of Charles Rehberg were then sold by Hodges' office to Phoebe Putney.
In the meantime, Bagnato and Rehberg reached out to class action lawyer Dick Scruggs. (who himself later found trouble with the law) They convinced Scruggs to file a class action lawsuit against non profit hospital on behalf of the uninsured. At this point, the media attention of Bagnato and Rehberg's actions caught the attention of the filmmakers at the Kindling Group. The idea for the film Do No Harm was born. While Rehberg and Bagnato investigated hundreds of hospitals, the film turned it's focus mostly on Phoebe Putney. (it should be noted that the film maker characterized the film as one sided but that's because Phoebe Putney refused to cooperate with its making)
The surest way to contain a whistle blower is to discredit them. Nothing discredits the credibility of anyone, especially a whistle blower, more than the specter of criminal charges, indictments, and convictions. Over the next two plus years, that's exactly what D.A. Ken Hodges attempted to impose on Rehberg and Bagnato. Both were arrested, fingerprinted, and filmed. Both were eventually charged with burglary, aggravated assault, and stalking. They were each charged multiple times. All the charges were totally bogus and eventually thrown out. In fact, according to court records Hodges took an investigation out of the local police department because, according to him, there were problems in the police department. Then, Hodges and his chief investigator, James Paulk, began an investigation into an alleged robbery of the home of Dr. James Hotz by Charles Rehberg. The only witness to testify at the grand jury for all crimes related to this burglary was Paulk. In fact, Rehberg had never been to the home of Dr. Hotz. Dr. Hotz never filed any police report of any burglary. Furthermore, Paulk eventually admitted under oath that he never gathered any evidence indicating that there was a burglary. In other words, according to these court documents, all subsequent criminal charges filed by D.A. Hodges against both Rehberg and Bagnato were bogus and nothing more than an orchestrated smear by the D.A. against these two whistle blowers.
Now, we've reached present day. In the last two weeks, the watch dog group, Georgia Watch, was promoting a screening of the film, Do No Harm. They recently also received a cease and desist order. The order was filed by Lin Wood, a friend and campaign contributor of Ken Hodges. The cease and desist order was filed on behalf of Phoebe Putney. It related to Georgia Watch's use of the word CORRUPTION. The word corruption was actually used by the filmmakers in describing the film for promotional purposes, and Georgia Watch was merely using the film's tag line. Still, the word has since been taken down from all promotional material related to the film.
Furthermore, for about the last year, Ken Hodges has worked at Baudino Law Group in Atlanta. In fact, the campaign is being run out of that office. The law group didn't have an Atlanta office until Hodges arrived there, and their main, and possibly only, client is Phoebe Putney. Also, the proprietor of the Baudino Law Group is facing ethics charges from the legal authority back in Des Moines where the group has its main office.
Finally, a source informed me that the television station, WALB, didn't act on its own in filing the cease and desist order. In fact, the campaign of Ken Hodges contacted the station prior to them filing it and suggested as much. It should be noted that Hodges wife, Melissa, (who works under her maiden name Kill) worked for WALB. I attempted to confirm this revelation with both the Hodges campaign as well as WALB and repeated phone calls and emails were not returned. The film continues to be in limbo. Ken Hodges continues to run for Attorney General of Georgia. Both Dr. Bagnato and Mr. Rehberg continue in their chosen employment and they both have civil law suits currently making their way through the court system against, among others, Ken Hodges.
Update: Tom at SWGA Politics (Southwest Georgia) reports that the wife of Jim Wilcox, station manager at WALB, contributed $500 to Ken Hodges campaign. Furthermore, Hodges wife, upon leaving WALB, took a job at Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital.
After this piece was originally published, Jim Wilcox, station manager at WALB, contacted me via email to categorically deny that anyone from the Hodges campaign was in contact with them regarding the cease and desist order. He made clear that this was strictly a matter of copyright. It should be noted that the station is well within their rights to protect their copyrights, and no one doubts that the station is well within their legal rigths to protect its trademark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
