Some items may not be available while we work on our new website to be released in July. Please check back.
|
Some items may not be available while we work on our new website to be released in July. Please check back. |
|
Community Advisory Committee Appointed for Livingston Manor The task of the recently appointed (June '03) Community Advisory Committee for Livingston Manor will include but not be limited to, reviewing the Financial Viability Study done by a Healthcare Consultant, evaluate the current position of Livingston Manor, study the trends in the nursing home industry, provide educational information to Livingston County citizens and assist and advise the County Board in determining a long-range plan for Livingston Manor. The Committee is comprised of the following individuals: Vicki Glennon, Arnold Natzke, Ken Beutke, Kathy Duffy, Donovan Gardner, David Heath, Wilbert Henkel, Beth Maier, Mary Margaret Nimbler, Dr. Larry Stalter, Mary Beth Taylor.
Click on a date to view the meeting minutes
Minutes of the Advisory Committee on Livingston Manor Clavey Room, Livingston County Courthouse, Pontiac, ILThe meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by chair Vicki Glennon. Roll Call was made. Present: Vicki Glennon, Arnold Natzke, David Heath, Wilbert Henkel, Ken Beutke, Donovan Gardner (arrived at 11:52 a.m.). Absent: Kathy Duffy, Beth Maier, Mary Margaret Nimbler, Dr. Larry Stalter, Mary Beth Taylor, Also Present: Jeanne Rapp, Glen Rustman, Carl Borngasser, Mason Hall A motion was made by Natzke, and seconded by Henkel to approve minutes of the October 27th, 2003 meeting. The motion passed with all ayes. Glennon handed out a draft of the committee’s report to the Board and told members present that Tom Blakeman has reviewed the draft and finds no legal problems with it. Discussion regarding the draft followed. The committee reviewed the idea of surveying county nursing homes. The consensus of the committee was to have a survey done immediately. The survey should look at staffing ratios, staffing mix, acuity level/patient mix, Medicare/Medicaid/Private Pay mix, budget information, facility information such as age/layout/funding for new facilities. It was suggested that counties with proximity, and similar populations and demographics be surveyed. (Include: McLean, Douglas, Lee, and Christian). It was suggested the County Coordinator contact John Ryan, Director of the Illinois County Nursing Home Association, to provide information for this project. The committee members agreed that the Recommendations Section of the report to the County Board should stand as written. Beutke made the following suggestions for changes: reword the introduction to say government has an obligation to “ensure care is accessible” rather than government is “obligated to provide care.” On page 6 and page 7, delete the words “must” and “is necessary” and replace with less-determinate terms. On page 10, change the wording to say a new facility could be located “near” the hospital, rather than on the OSF campus property. Glennon suggested that the wording on the bottom of page 7 needed revision to accurately reflect the committee’s intent. In response, Heath stated that the last sentence of paragraph 3 should become the first sentence of that paragraph. On pages 10 and 11, language regarding the cost of bond issuance should was revised. Members agreed to add a final page to the report thanking the County Board for the opportunity to assist in this important project. The last sentence of the last paragraph of page 13 was deleted. It was decided to mentioning that the County’s current limitations on further increases in tax levies could necessitate a referendum. The need to determine whether the nursing home was originally established by referendum was discussed. A revised draft will be sent to Nursing Home Committee members prior to their meeting on Wednesday, November 5th. There was general discussion of the public education process. Jeanne Rapp asked if members of the Advisory Committee would agree to assist in this process. Glennon stated that each member could be asked individually. Rapp agreed. A motion was made by Heath and seconded by Gardner to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed with all ayes. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
______________________________________ Mason B. Hall County Coordinator
Minutes of the Advisory Committee on Livingston Manor Clavey Room , Livingston County Courthouse The meeting was called to order at 11:09 a.m. by chair Vicki Glennon. Roll Call was made-
Present: Vicki Glennon, Wilbert Henkel, Beth Maier, Arnold Natzke, Ken Beutke, Mary Beth Taylor
Absent: Donovan Gardner, Mary Nimbler, Dr. Stalter, Kathy Duffy
Also Present: Jeanne Rapp, Bill Fairfield, Gina Jirus
A motion was made by Beth Maier and seconded by Mary Beth Taylor to accept the minutes of the October 13th, 2003 meeting. Motion carried with all ayes.
Each committee member present submitted his/her completed section of the final report to the County Board. Copies of each of these were given to all present. Vicki Glennon stated she will draft a final report consisting of all submitted sections, and will send copies to all committee members to review. Glennon said the final report needs to be completed and reviewed for presentation at the next County Board Nursing Home Committee meeting, November 5th, 2003 at 1:30 at Livingston Manor; and to presented to all County Board members at their next meeting, November 13th, 2003, at the Courthouse at 6 p.m. Arnold Natzke urged all Advisory Committee members to attend both meetings.
To initiate discussion of the committee’s recommendation to the County Board, Glennon passed out a list of questions. Prior to full discussion of the recommendation, Glennon asked for a show of hands of those affirming the general concept: Should Livingston County stay in the nursing home business? It was understood that this question was to be affirmed or negated without consideration of funding issues. The vote was unanimously in favor of staying in the business.
Discussion then moved to funding issues, and what the Advisory Committee will recommend in this regard. Ken Beutke stated that he believes the County Board members’ first consideration, and this committee’s recommendation, should be to decide on whether or not to take a binding referendum to the voters to secure funds for ongoing operations. He said that tax support is needed to cover operational costs because of the shortfall in Medicare reimbursements, and because of the uncertainty of landfill monies being available. Beutke said that if the nursing home could operate at break-even, including the monies a tax increase would generate, the second issue the Board members should consider is whether or not to build a new nursing home facility. It was suggested that County Board members, or their representatives, might need to visit other county nursing homes to generate new or better ideas on organizing and streamlining nursing home operations.
Mary Beth Taylor emphasized the need to serve the elderly people of Livingston County now and in the future, and how the committee can best achieve that goal. She asked if the committee’s final report would be made public when it is submitted to the County Board. Jeanne Rapp stated that it would be. It was suggested that the committee write a press release to assure the public’s full understanding of the final report.
Wilbert Henkel expressed his opinion that the amount of money presently needed to subsidize operations at Livingston Manor is far too high and administrative staff appears excessive, stating, too, that he is viewing this from outside the business.
Committee members continued to discuss whether or not the County Board should consider securing operational funding prior to deciding on whether or not a new facility will be built, or if these two issues should be decided in reverse order. It was finally agreed that the two issues are inseparable and need to be considered in tandem. Glennon asked Beutke if he would be willing to write a paragraph or two putting this recommendation into a form the committee can review at its next meeting. He stated that he would. The committee members present agreed to this plan.
The next committee meeting will be on Monday, November 3rd, 2003, at 11:00a.m.in the Clavey Room of the Courthouse.
A motion was made by Wilbert Henkel and seconded by Beth Maier to adjourn. Motion carried with all ayes.
The meeting adjourned at 12:16 p.m. _______________________ Gina Jirus
Minutes of the Advisory Committee on Livingston Manor Conference Room, Evenglow Lodge, Pontiac, ILThe meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by chair Vicki Glennon. Roll Call was made - Present: Vicki Glennon, Kathy Duffy, Donovan Gardner, David Heath, Wilbert Henkel, Beth Maier, Ken Beutke Absent: Arnold Natzke, Mary Margaret Nimbler, Dr. Larry Stalter, Mary Beth Taylor Also Present: Mason Hall, Bruce Koerner, Jeanne Rapp A motion by Henkel and second by Gardner was passed to accept the minutes of the September 29th Advisory Committee meeting. Each committee member present reviewed the work accomplished to date on the committee’s final report. Donovan Gardner reviewed his progress authoring the section on funding options available for a new facility. He presented two options: building the facility from landfill funds and borrowing the monies through bonds. An advantage to bonding is the possibility of an adjusted reimbursement rate for Medicaid due to the borrowing cost, along with the possibility monies could be borrowed more cheaply than what the County would earn through investment of those monies. Kathy Duffy reported that she and Arnold Natzke have worked on the following issues relative to the section on which they are working – Constructing a New Facility: 1. Keeping County residents informed as the process goes on 2. Establishing guidelines for architectural design 3. Possibly creating a building/construction committee 4. Urban vs. rural location advantages and disadvantages 5. Looking into the OSF Hospital campus as a building site, or property adjacent to the local OSF Hospital. 6. Looking into the number of Medicaid beds available for the nursing home 7. Increasing the number of private rooms 8. Constructing a new facility with the option to expand that facility at some future date, if necessary. Ken Beutke handed out an outline of for his report on operational activities and Medicaid-rate reimbursements. The outline had six main sections: 1. History of County subsidies 2. Medicaid reimbursement concern 3. Regulatory impacts that drive operational costs 4. Specific current building design impacts 5. Future considerations and concerns 6. Summary Kathy Duffy stated that determining the financial viability of a new facility was the first, and most important, issue to evaluate prior to moving ahead on a building project. The committee agreed that the planning and building process could take years to complete. Beth Maier discussed progress she and Mary Nimbler have made in working on their section of the Board Report – Building a new facility and leasing it to a management company. They have contacted a few different management companies, all of which have offered to come to Pontiac and make presentations to our committee and/or to the County Board. The committee members discussed lease vs. management contract options. Vicki Glennon reported that she and Wilbert Henkel are working on the report section titled “Selling the Current Business”. Henkel reported that he met with Will Coffin. Coffin reported on potential new federal legislation that may back bonds for county nursing home rates. This could assist in obtaining a lowered rate for bonding. David Heath’s review focused on facility closure processes. He reviewed several items: 1. How the Livingston Manor Nursing home was established, by resolution or referendum 2. Scheduling and timeline of process 3. Workforce issues 4. Resident issues, including an action plan for their transition to other facilities 5. Relations with the media Donovan Gardner stated there may have to be some approval process from the State of Illinois for the County to be allowed to close a County nursing home facility. Vicki Glennon handed out a sample of the committee’s final recommendation. In discussing this, the committee members decided their recommendation should be presented in the form of a flow chart or decision tree. It is planned that the recommendation will be finalized at the next committee meeting.
The committee members discussed getting the final report and recommendation to the County Board’s Nursing Home Committee by its November 5th meeting, and subsequently to the full County Board by it’s meeting on November 13. The next meeting is set for Monday, October 27th at 11:00 a.m. at the Courthouse. A motion by Heath and second by Beutke to adjourn the meeting passed with all ayes. The meeting adjourned at 12:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Mason B. Hall County Coordinator
Minutes of the Advisory Committee on Livingston Manor Clavey Room, Livingston County Courthouse, 112 W. Madison StreetThe meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by chair Vicki Glennon. Roll Call was made - Present: Vicki Glennon, Kathy Duffy, Donovan Gardner, David Heath, Wilbert Henkel, Mary Beth Taylor, Dr. Larry Stalter, Ken Beutke Absent: Mary Margaret Nimbler, Beth Maier, Arnold Natzke Also Present: Will Coffin, Mason Hall, Bill Fairfield, Jeanne Rapp Mary Nimbler’s name should be corrected in the minutes. On a motion by Wilbert Henkel and second by David Heath, the corrected minutes were accepted. . Vicki Glennon reviewed the previous meeting and potential for a professional survey. She summarized some of the key issues discussed by the Executive Committee at a meeting late last week. The Executive Committee concluded the following: 1. The core issue regarding construction and ongoing financial support of a new facility is funding. There is no relief in sight for the State’s present practice of under-funding for Medicaid residents, causing the Federal Government to under-fund in the form of matching funds. It is the Executive Committee’s opinion that County monies will be necessary to subsidize the nursing home operation even if a new facility were built. 2. It is the Executive Committee’s recommendation to the Advisory Committee that a report be authored by committee members in which all alternatives regarding the nursing home situation be reported. This should include study and data additional to what has already taken place. The options identified are:
3. The options previously studied by the Advisory Committee relative to gauging public opinion are not recommended at this time, because unless the amount of tax increase required to provide nursing home care is presented with the referendum, the vote will be worthless. Everyone wants to keep the nursing home, but how much are they will to pay to keep it? Additionally, if the County Board members decide they must have a binding referendum to enable new-facility funding, an earlier advisory referendum might become repetitious and possibly confusing to some voters. Donovan Gardner elaborated on the above plan, stating that if the County continues to provide nursing home care under any of the options presented, the County will have to subsidize the care. He said that with continued lack of support from the State, the situation would not change. Will Coffin was introduced and he passed out a summary of his presentation. The census rates were reviewed. He felt the temporary decline of market age group demographic (the Silent Generation) has affected recent occupancy rates; the public forum nature of being a County facility may affect people’s placement decisions for the nursing home; the OSF Care Advantage Product may have impacted the census; the current outdated facility may discourage placements (lack of private restrooms, small room size, modern amenities); residents of tomorrow may place a higher value on private bathrooms and other features. Coffin then reviewed the “Optimum Number of Beds in a New Facility”. He recommended keeping the same number of beds and possibly expanding with some available beds that might be acquired through the Fairbury nursing home that recently closed. Coffin stated economies-of-scale can be realized with a larger facility. Coffin then reviewed “Considerations for Design” of a new facility stating that facility design should maximize staff efficiency with possible inclusion of multiple dining rooms, efficient layout of nursing units, a locked Alzheimer’s unit and more. Residents are demanding to live in a less institutional setting, according to Coffin. The Pioneer Movement is one such example. Under this model, the residents have more personal choices, especially regarding dining. Coffin reviewed potentially better locations for a new facility. Dr. Stalter asked Coffin if he had a general idea as to the location of current residents’ roots or their families’ roots. Coffin responded that most have come from Livingston County according to a recent study. Ken Beutke asked Coffin how he thought he could maintain a higher private and Medicare census and not crowd these residents out with Medicaid clients. Coffin indicated, as in the consultants’ study, the private and Medicare census would need to increase approximately 4%. The committee thanked Coffin for his report, and returned to discussion the process necessary to put forth a position paper to the County Board. Bill Fairfield explained his viewpoint on the general question of whether or not the County should be in the nursing home business. Wilbert Henkel stated he has a difficult time forming a firm opinion regarding the future of the County’s nursing home when comparing it to the apparent financial success of Good Samaritan Home in Flanagan. Some discussion and comparisons were made to other nursing homes in the County. Dr. Stalter indicated that unless there was no feasible way to do so, he recommends staying in the business. Ken Beutke stated he needs more financial information prior to making a recommendation to the Board. Glennon indicated that, as Heath had pointed out, a committee report to the Board must take into consideration that the committee is unable to make a single decision because it is impossible to know full financial information. Dave Heath asked about getting a draft letter started in rough form, and circulating it so the committee could begin getting that step completed. Glennon stated that an outline could be worked on before the next meeting. Mary Beth Taylor asked about a recent list of County nursing home rates for comparison purposes. The committee reviewed these rates in the consultants’ study. The next meeting is set for Monday, September 29th at 11:00 a.m. A motion to adjourn was made by David Heath and seconded by Ken Beutke. The meeting adjourned at 12:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Mason B. Hall County Coordinator
Minutes of the Advisory Committee on Livingston Manor Clavey Room, Livingston County Courthouse, 112 W. Madison StreetThe meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by chair Vicki Glennon. Roll Call was made - Present: Vicki Glennon, Arnold Natzke, Kathy Duffy, Beth Maier, David Heath, Donovan Gardner, Wilbert Henkel, Ken Beutke Absent: Dr. Larry Stalter, Mary Beth Taylor, Beth Nimbler Also Present: Jeanne Rapp, Mason Hall, Helen Holz, George Knudsen, Catherine Kudrick, Bruce Koerner, Dr. Barbara Burrell, Dee Woodburn Vicki Glennon discussed the option of a professional survey conducted by ISU. Glennon stated a professor from ISU’s MBA Program said his graduate-level Research Methodology class could conduct a mailed survey for the cost of materials, postage and printing. An answer from this committee is needed by tomorrow if the committee wants ISU to conduct the survey. The committee decided to establish an executive committee consisting of Vicki Glennon, Donovan Gardner, Arnold Natzke, and Kathy Duffy. Through the Executive Committee, the ISU situation, and similar ones, can be dealt with more quickly, with the Executive Committee members contacting the remaining committee members by phone, if a consensus is needed. The next full meeting of the Advisory Committee will be on Monday, September 8th at 11:00 a.m. George Knudsen asked about the purpose of the survey and if it would be in place of a referendum. The committee explained that a survey would be to gauge public opinion only. Dr. Barbara Burrell, Associate Director of Northern Illinois University’s Public Opinion Laboratory, was introduced to the committee. She asked the committee for more information on what is to be obtained from a survey and the purpose of the committee. Dr. Burrell gave an overview of some of the work the NIU Laboratory has previously conducted, and the surveying methodology that can be used in Livingston County. The advantages of doing a telephone survey vs. a mail survey were discussed, and Dr. Burrell addressed the accuracy of the sample each might yield. She suggested that a newspaper advertisement notifying County residents of the upcoming survey could be effective. Due to the wide spread use of answering machines, Dr. Burrell said telephone surveying is becoming more difficult. She stated there is little difference between mail and telephone survey response rates. A 50 percent response rate is the goal for both types of surveys. In a mailed survey, Dr. Burrell stated, it may be more difficult to get a random sampling. When focusing on a specific list, such as a list of registered-voters, randomness is more easily achieved. A mail survey can be completed more inexpensively than a phone survey. Dr. Burrell indicated that a response rate of 500 people would likely yield an accuracy margin of +/- 4.4 percentage points, while a 300-person response rate would likely yield an accuracy margin of +/- of 5.7 percentage points. If started soon, a phone survey could be completed in November. A mail survey would probably cost about $8,000 for a response rate of approximately 500 persons, and might go beyond the November timeline, extending into December. Ken Beutke asked about availability of grant monies for the survey. Dr. Burrell indicated she was not aware of any grants for County surveys. Vicki Glennon asked about the size of staff and resources at the survey center. Dr. Burrell reviewed the center’s resources, the make-up of staff, and the time availability of staff. Following Dr. Burrell’s presentation, the committee members discussed the pros and cons of mail surveys versus phone surveys. The Cost Proposal from Dr. Burrell was reviewed. The cost for a 500-person response to a telephone survey is $13,860. The cost for a 300-person response is $9,306. Dee Woodburn asked about funding of the survey. Questions were asked about the Board’s willingness to pay for a survey. The question was raised regarding what the Board might get from a survey compared to other options, and if the benefit of a survey would outweigh the associated cost. It was suggested that the potential monies spent for a professional survey could be used instead for public education through mailings, media, town meetings and so forth. Vicki Glennon will contact ISU to get more information regarding methodology and cost of the survey proposed through the Graduate School. It is hoped the committee’s decision regarding ISU’s proposal might be postponed for at least a week. It was suggested that the executive committee develop an informational piece regarding the current issues of the nursing home and begin some informational work with the local media. A motion for adjournment was made by Natzke and seconded by Heath. The motion passed with all ayes. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mason B. Hall
Minutes of the Advisory Committee on Livingston Manor Clavey Room, Livingston County Courthouse, 112 W. Madison StreetThe meeting was called to order at 12:32 p.m. by chair Vicki Glennon. Roll Call was made - Present: Vicki Glennon, Arnold Natzke, Kathy Duffy, Beth Maier, Mary Nimbler, Mary Beth Taylor, Dr. Larry Stalter, David Heath, Donovan Gardner, Ken Beutke (arrived late) Absent: Wilbert Henkel Also Present: Mason Hall, Helen Holz, Jeanne Rapp A motion was made by Gardner, and seconded by Maier, to accept the minutes as written. Glennon reviewed the status of using landfill funds for construction of a new nursing home, noting that Jeanne Rapp had stated at the 7/21 meeting that there is no way to predict, at this time, how a new nursing-home facility might be funded. Kathy Duffy gave a report of her discussion with the Illinois Nursing Home Association director. Thirty-One county nursing homes still exist in Illinois, down from 37 just a few years ago. Recently, five nursing homes have undertaken new construction or updated existing facilities, (Champaign, McHenry DeKalb, Jackson and McDonough). DeWitt County nursing home is in financial trouble, Duffy stated. Ford County’s status is not fully known. Glennon reviewed her handout in which committee members’ questions, reviewed at the last meeting, have been placed in three categories: Philosophy, Efficiency, and Financial. The committee reviewed the questions and discussed how to proceed. Gardner presented a review of the underlying assumptions presented in the MPA study of Livingston Manor. He noted the 100% occupancy-rate assumption by MPA might be considered too high. He stated that 96% is a more realistic number, or possibly 90 – 92%. Further he stated that simply building a new facility will not solve all the financial problems being experienced at Livingston Manor. While noting the Medicaid, Medicare and Private Pay projections in the study may be reasonable, Gardner said the MPA study assumes a rate increase in Medicaid, and a 30% increase in the private pay rate. Current rates were discussed. It is believed that current rates are about $86 for Medicaid residents and $108 for Private Pay residents. The committee members concluded that rehabilitating/remodeling the present Livingston Manor facility is not feasible. The committee members further concluded that, for financial reasons, current operations cannot continue as they are now. Dr. Stalter stated he hopes the County can remain in the nursing-home business. He indicated he serves about one-half current Livingston Manor residents, and that the care at Livingston Manor matches or exceeds that of other County nursing-care facilities. The committee discussed the high demand on staff with Livingston Manor’s current layout, and the role of nursing/nurses-aid care at the facility. Beutke asked how recently the nursing home has evaluated staffing levels. It was pointed out that the MPA study suggested a change in staffing levels as a means to improved financial viability for the business. Glennon asked Beutke if there is potential for a cooperative effort between OSF St. James and Livingston Manor, and if locating a nursing home facility on the Hospital’s campus might enhance that cooperation. Beutke addressed two issues: the acuity of care nursing homes need to provide; and the ability of nursing homes to admit patients at all times and on all days. He did not think locating a nursing-home facility on the OSF grounds would impact either of these issues.
The question of a future location for a
nursing-care facility was discussed. The committee concluded that if there is
a new Home is constructed, it should be located in an urban area where public
utilities, facilities and amenities are available. Will Coffin will be asked to come to the next meeting regarding the implementation of the study and other issues relevant to the Advisory Committee. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 18th at 11:00 a.m. (not 12:30 p.m.). The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Mason Hall
Minutes of the Advisory Committee on Livingston Manor Clavey Room at the Livingston County Courthouse, 112 W. Madison StreetThe meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m. by chair Vicki Glennon. Roll Call was made - Present: Vicki Glennon, Arnold Natzke, Kathy Duffy, Donovan Gardner, Wilbert Henkel, Beth Maier, Mary Nimbler, Mary Beth Taylor Absent: Ken Beutke, David Heath, Dr. Larry Stalter Also Present: Mason Hall, Helen Holz, Jeanne Rapp, Carl Borngasser, Glen Rustman (late) Introductions were made. Vicki Glennon passed around a summary of the questions submitted for consideration by several committee members, the mission statement, minutes of the July 8th meeting and other materials previously distributed that some committee members may not have had. The committee started by reading through the question-summary sheet. Glennon indicated an advisory referendum, if decided upon, would need to be on the March 16, 2004, ballot. That election, she stated, is a presidential primary. Petitions would need to be presented to the County Board by November 13th to allow time for the Board to put the referendum on the ballot. The question about the number of petition signatures was discussed and the fact that legislation awaiting the governor’s signature may reduce the number of petition signatures currently required. Discussion was held regarding the timing of putting a referendum on the ballot and the advisability of having an advisory referendum compared to a binding referendum. Jeanne Rapp was asked if the County Board would pay for capital costs of a new nursing home facility with landfill revenue. She reviewed the current status of the landfill expansion, and current and potential revenues. If the landfill expansion does go through, it will be possible to pay with those monies, Rapp said, but that decision remains with County Board members. Rapp further stated that if the expansion does not go through, then it is unlikely the County could pay for a new nursing home facility without a tax increase. The subject of tax caps was mentioned, with Mason Hall stating he believes the tax cap issue does not apply to situations involving a special referendum Donovan Gardner suggested the questions the committee was reviewing could be divided into a few basic categories:
As recommended by Gardner, Glennon asked committee members if they think a review of these questions should proceed under the assumption that the County will remain in the nursing home business with the understanding this assumption may change. Members agreed to proceed as suggested. Vicki Glennon noted there are seven (7) existing nursing homes in Livingston County. Donovan Gardner stated he does not believe that the occupancy rate in the homes in this County is at capacity, though perhaps it is better than elsewhere in the state and the nation in general. Mary Beth Taylor asked if there is an optimum number of beds for nursing homes to be financially viable. Gardner replied that for a nursing home of our size-category, 80 to 90 beds might be considered optimum. The question of whether financially viable nursing homes are successful due to private pay clients was asked, and the consensus was that the mix of private pay and Medicaid/Medicare clients is often a critical factor in financial stability. Discussion moved to the County Board’s priority in building a new Law and Justice Center versus a new nursing home. Jeanne Rapp indicated she could not say, at this point, what the Board’s opinion would be. Committee members stated there has been a positive reception from community members they have talked with regarding keeping a County nursing home, though negative views have been expressed, as well. There was discussion regarding the census of Pontiac and non-Pontiac residents in the County nursing home. Further discussion was held regarding the County nursing home’s mix of Medicaid and private pay clients. Committee members agreed that the role of a county-owned nursing home is to be open to acceptance of Medicaid residents and not to actively compete with private pay facilities in the County? Kathy Duffy stated that she will contact the Illinois County Nursing Home Association to get a list of County nursing homes that have closed, as well as those that have built new facilities. The next meeting is set for Monday, August 4th at 12:30 p.m. The following meeting is set for Monday, August 18th at 12:30 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 1:37 p.m. _________________________________ Mason B. Hall County Coordinator
Minutes of the Community Advisory Committee Meeting
Clavey Room at the Livingston County Courthouse, 112 W. Madison Street
The meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m. by chair Vicki Glennon.
Roll Call was made -
Present: Ken Beutke, David Heath, Wilbert Henkel, Kathy Duffy, Donovan Gardner, Vicki Glennon and Arnold Natzke
Absent: Beth Maier, Mary Margaret Nimbler, Dr. Larry Stalter, Mary Beth Taylor
Also Present: Mason Hall
Minutes were reviewed from the June 26th Advisory committee meeting. A correction on the spelling of Henkel was made and Dr. Stalter was added to the absent roll call. Motion to accept minutes by Heath, second by Henkel. Motion passed with all ayes.
Glennon passed out an informational packet on Nursing Home Strategic Planning Considerations (developed by Livingston Manor Administrator Will Coffin), minutes from the DeKalb County presentational meeting to the Nursing Home Committee meeting, the Champaign County presentation handout, and the June 26th Nursing Home Committee meeting minutes. The committee reviewed the handouts.
Glennon started out by pointing out the list of recommendations. Then asked the committee how they thought they should proceed with the committee’s processes. Natzke reviewed the process of an advisory referendum and who must initiate the referendum. The decision on a referendum needs to be made fairly quickly so it could get on the next available election. Natzke thought that a March primary required that the petitions be completed by December. He suggested two months to circulate and campaign. Therefore, by September the recommendation to the County Board should be made. Beutke questioned whether an advisory referendum was advantageous over a standard referendum. Gardner asked what the purpose of the referendum would be. Would it be for building and/or operational costs? Duffy asked whether the question should be resolved whether the County stays in the business?
Natzke indicated that there was an urgency because of the annual subsidy to the nursing home would become very draining for the County.
Heath asked the question what the criteria for accepting/turning away residents for care. He also asked if it would be a wise decision to scale back the residency to give a true picture to County residents of the service that could affordably be provided. Gardner indicated that there was no State law requiring the county to accept Medicaid residents. Gardner did say that he felt the phase over would take some time, if the County chose to exit the business. Gardner said a new Medicaid rate may help the financial picture of the new home. The other issue is where the residents go if the beds at Livingston Manor are closed.
Glennon felt that she and Natzke should work on the referendum issue. Henkel felt that the number of referendum on the ballot should also be considered. Kathy Duffy asked about the possibility of an extension. Arnold didn’t know if the Board was comfortable with a longer period of time to review the issues.
Beutke asked if the critical question of “should the County be in the nursing home business?” be answered prior to work on a referendum. Heath asked if the Advisory Committee would be the right group to make a decision of this magnitude and if the County Board was passing the “buck” to the Committee.
Heath asked if there should be some surveys and informational campaign to get some response from citizens. He suggested starting with a list of common questions. Glennon clarified that the questions should be those that would be asked by public. Beutke felt that the answer to being in the business would vary depending upon the answers to how the future operations and new building would be funded.
Glennon asked the committee to meet again on Monday, July 21st @ 12:30 in the Clavey room. Questions would be submitted by Thursday, July 17th to the County Coordinator. Another meeting was set for Monday, August 4th @ 12:30 in the Clavey room.
There was further discussion of the value of the nursing home license and transitioning out of the business by the County paying a subsidy to the organization.
Meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. _________________________________ Mason B. Hall County Coordinator |
|
"...serving the people of Livingston County" |
