Who's watching MGH's money maneuvers?

When is the Marin County Grand Jury going to investigate the malfeasance of the private, appointed hospital board that has allowed Sutter to siphon off almost $100 million in what it calls "excess profits" from Marin General? The citizens of Marin County should demand a full investigation BEFORE Sutter turns over the hospital with its recently emptied coffers. If legal action against the Sutter-compliant appointed board is the only way to get our money back, let's go for it!

What I find interesting is the lack of mentioning the amount of money Sutter has put into Marin General in the past years. MGH has one some of the most up to date equipment - The Da Vinci robot for surgeries which allow quicker recovery time; state of the art cardiac catheterization and radiation therapy equipment, just to name a few. All these things cost millions of dollars - something that a stand alone hospital might not have had the funding to do. Sutter has poured money into the pension plans of it's employees in the face of this terrible economy because they care about their employees. The money is not just being siphoned off into a black hole - MGH has received quite a bit of the money back in the way of capitol investments and I find it interesting that the community is not looking that far beneath the surface reporting that is being done to sell newspapers.

Anonymous wrote:

What I find interesting is the lack of mentioning the amount of money Sutter has put into Marin General in the past years. MGH has one some of the most up to date equipment - The Da Vinci robot for surgeries which allow quicker recovery time; state of the art cardiac catheterization and radiation therapy equipment, just to name a few. All these things cost millions of dollars - something that a stand alone hospital might not have had the funding to do. Sutter has poured money into the pension plans of it's employees in the face of this terrible economy because they care about their employees. The money is not just being siphoned off into a black hole - MGH has received quite a bit of the money back in the way of capitol investments and I find it interesting that the community is not looking that far beneath the surface reporting that is being done to sell newspapers.

Even slumlords are required under law to provide basics and live up to contracts. It is the skimming that is of concern. Perhaps you are well off enough to make up for their fiscal malfeasance.

Sutter has been fooling many people (like Anonymous who wrote a comment above) while the facts, though complex to understand, reveal quite a different story. Sutter ONLY purchased expensive equipment for the hospital because their lease required them to spend money on this equipment (called a capital expenditure).

Instead of paying real rent, the lease said they were supposed to invest profits back into the hospital in the form of building improvements and equipment (capital expenditures.

But then Sutter basically started splitting hairs with the District over what constituted a capital expenditure and no accurate auditing of how the capital expenditure moneys were spent occurred for years.

Then around 2004, Sutter said they believed they had actually overspent what they owed on capital expenditures per the lease and didn't intend to spend anymore. Nevermind there was no real accounting for what had actually been spent.

Their profits averaged between $10 and $30 million per year for several years and they paid no real rent and spent only the minimum required by the lease for improvements to the hospital.

The CA earthquake of 1994 led to the State enacting seismic safety laws for hospitals in 1996. Since 1996 Sutter was making substantial profits, paying little rent, spending only the lease required amount of money on (often questionable) capital improvements and not spending a dime on meeting the seismic safety laws (even though their lease required them to maintain the building in accord with all laws).

And don't believe those who try to say that Sutter rescued the hospital from financial trouble, so they now have a right to profit. If the hospital was in such financial trouble when Sutter arrived, then why do the financials show that Sutter transferred only very small amounts into the hospital during that time. If Sutter rescued the hospital, we would see many millions coming in during the first years of the lease from Sutter but that is not the case.

Not sure...but one last point re: Anonymous' comments above..I believe the DaVinci system is leased and was not actually purchased.

Mill Valley Rez wrote:

Sutter has been fooling many people (like Anonymous who wrote a comment above) while the facts, though complex to understand, reveal quite a different story. Sutter ONLY purchased expensive equipment for the hospital because their lease required them to spend money on this equipment (called a capital expenditure).
Instead of paying real rent, the lease said they were supposed to invest profits back into the hospital in the form of building improvements and equipment (capital expenditures.
But then Sutter basically started splitting hairs with the District over what constituted a capital expenditure and no accurate auditing of how the capital expenditure moneys were spent occurred for years.
Then around 2004, Sutter said they believed they had actually overspent what they owed on capital expenditures per the lease and didn't intend to spend anymore. Nevermind there was no real accounting for what had actually been spent.
Their profits averaged between $10 and $30 million per year for several years and they paid no real rent and spent only the minimum required by the lease for improvements to the hospital.
The CA earthquake of 1994 led to the State enacting seismic safety laws for hospitals in 1996. Since 1996 Sutter was making substantial profits, paying little rent, spending only the lease required amount of money on (often questionable) capital improvements and not spending a dime on meeting the seismic safety laws (even though their lease required them to maintain the building in accord with all laws).
And don't believe those who try to say that Sutter rescued the hospital from financial trouble, so they now have a right to profit. If the hospital was in such financial trouble when Sutter arrived, then why do the financials show that Sutter transferred only very small amounts into the hospital during that time. If Sutter rescued the hospital, we would see many millions coming in during the first years of the lease from Sutter but that is not the case.
Not sure...but one last point re: Anonymous' comments above..I believe the DaVinci system is leased and was not actually purchased.

Thank you for revealing the truth to the people of Marin, your post should be a front page article in all the newspapers of the greater bay area.
To me I can't understand how this privatization of MGH was ever allowed in the first place, but what's done is done and this will teach us a lesson. The people of Marin should not let Sutter slide, we should demand repayment of stolen public funds.
MGH took a big hit on this deal, and I hope that they will completely recover from this looting some day. It was the worst theft of public assets in Marin county history.