Free Hospital EMR and EHR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to Hospital EMR and EHR for FREE!

TigerConnect Successfully Rebrands in Just 9 Months

Posted on April 16, 2018 I Written By

Colin Hung is the co-founder of the #hcldr (healthcare leadership) tweetchat one of the most popular and active healthcare social media communities on Twitter. Colin speaks, tweets and blogs regularly about healthcare, technology, marketing and leadership. He is currently an independent marketing consultant working with leading healthIT companies. Colin is a member of #TheWalkingGallery. His Twitter handle is: @Colin_Hung.

Rebranding is not easy. Rebranding a well-established company that has become synonymous with a form of healthcare communication is even harder. Executing that rebrand in just 9 months while simultaneously preparing for healthcare’s biggest event – the annual HIMSS conference – is a near impossible task. Yet that’s what the team at TigerText, now TigerConnect, pulled off earlier this year.

At HIMSS18, TigerText became TigerConnect. Along with the new name came a new logo – albeit one with a clear homage to their company’s past. The new logo features a cleaner font style and a clever graphic element. If you look closely you will see that the graphic is four interlocking C’s which represent the company’s goal – Connected, Clinical, Communications, and Collaboration. The four colors are meant to represent the four different members of the care team: Doctors, Nurses, Allied Health Professionals, and Patients.

“The old brand was really about texting and compliance,” explained Kelli Castellano, Chief Marketing Officer for TigerConnect. “Not only was the word ‘text’ front and center, but our old brand also had a text box with a lock symbol as the main graphic. You couldn’t get more literal than that. When we first started, we were focused on being the best secure texting and compliance solution in the market. We sold to healthcare compliance officers and to CIOs. The TigerText brand personified that focus and it really served us well.”

But then in 2016, the company launched a new clinical workflow solution called TigerFlow.

“When we showed TigerFlow to prospects it was well received,” Castellano continued. “But people would leave the meeting wondering why their texting company was talking to them about clinical workflow. Worse, many clinicians were confused on being invited to a meeting with TigerText – a company they viewed as a technology infrastructure provider.”

By early 2017, after a few months of research and introspection, the team realized that the company name and brand was holding them back. It was simply too much to ask their target audience, which now included clinical decision makers like CMOs, CMIOs and CNOs, to see the company as anything more than a texting platform.

Castellano and the rest of the Marketing Team knew that rebranding the company would be risky. After all, hundreds of thousands of users click the TigerText logo each day on their phones to communicate securely with their peers. “TigerTexting” had even become a verb used by their customers to describe the act of sending messages through their system.

To gain buy-in and build internal momentum for a rebrand, Castellano asked her team to “do the research” and gather feedback from stakeholders including: customers, board advisors, partners and staff. They found there was consensus for changing the TigerText name.

After three months of work, Castellano and her team, with the support of Co-Founder and CEO, Brad Brooks, officially began the rebranding initiative.

It was now the end of spring 2017 and Castellano set an ambitious goal of launching the new brand at HIMSS18 – only 9 months away. “It was definitely an audacious goal,” admitted Castellano. “But we all knew that it just had to get done. Our Sales Team needed it. Our company needed it. We just had to move forward.”

Castellano allocated half of her ten person team to work on the rebrand while the other half worked on HIMSS18 pre-show marketing and building up their sales funnel. Everything came together and on March 6th the new brand was revealed.

CEO Brooks explained the new name this way: “Our new name – TigerConnect – allows us to clearly articulate the true value our solutions deliver. We connect care teams, existing data systems, and ultimately healthcare communities across a centralized and highly scalable clinical messaging platform. It is this real-time connection to data and people that dramatically improves the way healthcare organizations communicate to drive better results. We wanted that value to be reflected in our name and brand icon which are 4 interlocking C’s that represent Connected Clinical Communication and Collaboration.”

According to Castellano the reaction internally has been overwhelmingly positive. “We gave our staff a preview of the new brand in January. Everyone was very proud and happy with the new name. It was fresh and new, yet it still had a nod to our heritage and roots. Everyone felt that the new brand would allow us to better position the company and elevate the conversations we were having.”

“The reaction at HIMSS was also very positive,” noted Brooks. “The name change gave us the opportunity to talk about our story. We talked about where we had been and where we were going. It was really a lightbulb moment for visitors to the booth. We got a lot of ‘Aha…that makes sense’ comments.”

Having led three rebranding initiatives at three different companies, I applaud Castellano and her team for achieving their goal in such a short time frame. To do it on top of preparing for HIMSS is simply incredible.

It will be interesting to track the growth of TigerConnect in the years to come to see if the rebrand helps the company reach its desired financial results.

Yale New Haven Hospital Partners With Epic On Centralized Operations Center

Posted on February 5, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Info, info, all around, and not a place to manage it all. That’s the dilemma faced by most hospitals as they work to leverage the massive data stores they’re accumulating in their health IT systems.

Yale New Haven Hospital’s solution to the problem is to create a centralized operations center which connects the right people to real-time data analytics. Its Capacity Command Center (nifty alliteration, folks!) was created by YNHH, Epic and the YNHH Clinical Redesign Initiative.

The Command Center project comes five years into YNHH’s long-term High Reliability project, which is designed to prepare the institution for future challenges. These efforts are focused not only on care quality and patient safety but also managing what YNHH says are the highest patient volumes in Connecticut. Its statement also notes that with transfers from other hospitals increasing, the hospital is seeing a growth in patient acuity, which is obviously another challenge it must address.

The Capacity Command Center’s functions are fairly straightforward, though they have to have been a beast to develop.

On the one hand, the Center offers technology which sorts through the flood of operational data generated by and stored in its Epic system, generating dashboards which change in real time and drive process changes. These dashboards present real-time metrics such as bed capacity, delays for procedures and tests and ambulatory utilization, which are made available on Center screens as well as within Epic.

In addition, YNHH has brought representatives from all of the relevant operational areas into a single physical location, including bed management, the Emergency Department, nursing staffing, environmental services and patient transport. Not only is this a good approach overall, it’s particularly helpful when patient admissions levels climb precipitously, the hospital notes.

This model is already having a positive impact on the care process, according to YNHH’s statement. For example, it notes, infection prevention staffers can now identify all patients with Foley catheters and review their charts. With this knowledge in hand, these staffers can discuss whether the patient is ready to have the catheter removed and avoid related urinary tract infections associated with prolonged use.

I don’t know about you, but I was excited to read about this initiative. It sounds like YNHH is doing exactly what it should do to get more out of patient data. For example, I was glad to read that the dashboard offered real-time analytics options rather than one-off projections from old data. Bringing key operational players together in one place makes great sense as well.

Of course, not all hospitals will have the resources to pull something off something like this. YNHH is a 1,541-bed giant which had the cash to take on a command center project. Few community hospitals would have the staff or money to make such a thing happen. Still, it’s good to see somebody at the cutting edge.

Apple Trials Tech Offering Patient Access To Their Health Records

Posted on January 29, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

In recent times, tech giants have been falling over themselves in a race to offer consumers the best access to their health data, including even dark horses like Amazon. And it’s little wonder – it’s become increasingly obvious that he who controls patient health data access controls a critical sector of the entire healthcare industry.

The most recent stake in the ground comes from Apple, whose latest update to its Health app allows customers to see their medical records on their iPhone. The Health Records section of the Health app, which comes with the release of the iOS 11.3 beta, collects FHIR-based records from multiple sources and makes them available through its Health Records section.

The patient data display will pull together patient data from various healthcare organizations into a single view. The data will include lists of allergies, conditions and medications taken, immunizations records, lab results on procedures and vital sign information. When providers published new information, iPhone users will be notified.

To conduct its Health Records beta test, Apple has partnered with a number of high-profile health systems and hospitals, including Johns Hopkins Medicine; Cedars-Sinai; Penn Medicine; Geisinger Health System; UC San Diego Health; UNC Health Care; Rush University Medical Center; Dignity Health; Ochsner Health System; MedStar Health and OhioHealth.

As part of its launch, Apple told the New York Times that unless consumers specifically choose to share it with the company, it will never see the data, which will be encrypted and stored locally on the iPhone.  A recent (if unscientific) poll suggests that consumers trust Apple with their health data more than other top tech vendors, so this reassurance may be enough to ease their fears.

But security is hardly Apple’s biggest concern. How does the tech colossus expect to profit from its health data investments?  When I break the issues down, it looks like this:

  • Unlike hospitals and clinics, which can expect medium- to long-term ROI when patients manage their health better, Apple doesn’t deliver care.
  • Apple might want to sell anonymized aggregated patient data, but as far as I know, the company would still have to get patient permission, and that would be an administrative and legal nightmare.
  • If Apple or its competitors have some vision of selling access to the patient, good luck with that. Providers have a hard time attracting and keeping patients with nifty technology even if those patients live in their backyard.

While I could be missing something major, from what I see, Apple, Google, Samsung, Amazon and the rest are engaging in a series of preemptive patient data land grabs. My sense is that none of them know exactly what to do with this data, they’ll be damned if they’re going to let their competitors get there first.

That said, many in the industry are suggesting that this move is just another effort by Apple to sell more iPhones. The question I ask is how valuable will the information be to the patients? Certainly the beta hospitals and health systems are large and have a lot of data, but how is this going to scale down to the smaller providers? If you don’t have these smaller providers, then you’re going to be missing some of the most important health data.

Roche, GE Project Brings New Spin To Clinical Decision Support

Posted on January 10, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

The clinical decision support market is certainly crowded, and what’s more, CDS solutions vary in some important ways. On the other hand, one could be forgiven for feeling like they all look the same. Sorting out these technologies is not a job for the faint of heart.

That being said, it’s possible that the following partnership might offer something distinctive. Pharmaceutical giant Roche has signed a long-term partnership deal with GE Healthcare to jointly develop and market clinical decision support technology.

In a prepared statement, the two companies said they were developing a digital platform with a difference. The platform will use analytics to fuel workflow tools and apps and support clinical decisions. The platform will integrate a wide range of data, including patient records, medical best practices and recent research outcomes.

At least at the outset of their project, Roche and GE Healthcare are targeting oncology and critical care. With a pharmaceutical company and healthcare technology firm working together, providing tools for oncology specialists in particular makes a lot of sense.

The partners say that their product will give oncology care teams with multiple specialists a common data dashboard to review, which should help them collaborate on treatment decisions. Meanwhile, they plan to offer critical care physicians a dashboard integrating data from patient’ hospital monitoring equipment with their biomarker, genomic and sequencing data.

The idea of integrating new and possibly relevant information to the CDS platform is intriguing. It’s particularly interesting to imagine physicians leveraging genetic information to make real-time decisions. I think it’s safe to say that we’d all like it if CDS systems could bring the rudiments of precision medicine to thorny day-to-day clinical problems.

But the truth is, if my interactions with doctors mean anything, that few of them like CDS systems. Some have told me flat out that they end up overriding many CDS prompts, which arguably makes these very expensive systems almost irrelevant to hospital-based clinical practice. It’s hard to tell whether they would be willing to trust a new approach.

However, if GE and Roche can pull off what they’re pitching, it might just provide enough value it might convince them. Certainly, creating a more flexible dashboard which integrates data and office workflows is a large step in the right direction. And it’s probably fair to say that nothing like this exists in the market right now (as they claim).

Again, while there’s no guaranteed way to build out useful technology, bringing a pharma giant and a health IT giant might give both sides a leg up. I wonder how many users and patients they have involved in their design process. Let’s see if they can back up their promises.

Hospitals Puts Off Patient Billing For Several Months During EMR Rollout

Posted on January 6, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Here’s something you don’t see every day. A New Hampshire hospital apparently delayed mailing out roughly 10,000 patient bills going back as far as 11 months ago while it rolled out its new EMR.

According to a report in the Foster’s Daily Democrat,  members of Frisbie Memorial Hospital’s medical staff recently went public with concerns about the hospital’s financial state. Then a flood of delayed patient bills followed, some requesting thousands of dollars, the paper reported.

Hospital officials, for their part, said the delay was planned. Hospital president John Marzinzik said Frisbie needed time to implement its new Meditech EMR and didn’t want to send out incorrect bills during the rollout.

In fact, Marzinzik told Foster’s, under the previous system, records generated during doctor visits weren’t compatible with forms for hospital billing.

Rather than relying further on this patchwork of incompatible systems, Marzinzik and his staff decided to wait until the process was “absolutely clean” for patients. The hospital decided to have a staff member validate every balance shown on a statement before sending them out, he says.

Previously, in December of last year, anonymous Frisbie medical staff members sent Foster’s a letter to share concerns about the hospital and its administrators. The criticisms included skepticism about the over-budget implementation of the $13.5 million Meditech system, which they named as one of the reasons they lack confidence in the hospital administration. The staff members said that this cost overrun, as well as other problems, have undermined the hospital’s financial position.

As is always the case in such situations, hospital leaders took the stage to deny these allegations. Frisbie Senior VP Joe Shields told the paper that the hospital is in sound financial condition, and also said that the only reason why the Meditech project went over budget by $1.5 million was that the administrators delayed the implementation by seven weeks to give the staff holiday time off.

Hmmm. I don’t know about you, but to me, some parts of this story look a little bit bogus. For example:

* I appreciate accurate hospital bills as much as anybody, but the staff was going to check them manually anyway, why did it take 10 or 11 months for them to do so?

* The holidays take place at the same time every year.  Did administrators actually forget they were coming to an event that necessitated an almost 10% cost overrun?

Of course, only a small number of people know the answers to these questions, and I’m certainly not one of them. But the whole picture is a little bit odd.

Catholic Healthcare West Drops Church Affiliation

Posted on January 23, 2012 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

In a move I wouldn’t be surprised to see imitated, big religious hospital chain Catholic Healthcare West has broken its official ties with the Roman Catholic Church, though it will continue to include both Catholic and non-Catholic facilities in its flock.   The chain, which is changing its name to Dignity Health, currently includes 15 non-Catholic hospitals and 25 Catholic hospitals.

The system’s leaders have concluded that they couldn’t meet their ambitious growth targets if forced to adhere to faith-based care guidelines in all of its facilities.

According to CEO and president Lloyd Dean, who spoke to USA Today, he’s had to step away from potential deals several times when partners questioned their role in a Catholic system. This way, it should be much easier for CHW to work with other systems and acquire medical practices, observers say.

I expect to see other faith-based chains consider similar moves over the next year or two. As we’ve noted in this forum before, having to adhere to religiously-based rules can be a bit of a hassle for secular organizations, especially those that hope to compete in tight markets.  Mergers between the two sides can become a Tylenol headache very quickly.

Consider the struggles the University of Louisville (KY) went through in an effort to merge with Catholic-owned St. Mary’s Healthcare, forcing it propose build a “hospital in a hospital” to provide forbidden services. It makes my eyes water just to think about it. With health reform afoot, mergers a fact of life and new partnership models emerging every day, CHW may have done the only thing it could do.

Small-Hospital Mergers A Signal That Crisis Is Upon Us

Posted on December 19, 2011 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

If you’re wondering how healthy an industry is, look at how many smaller players are selling out. And if the smaller players are bailing like rats from the proverbial ship, consider that industry to be in crisis. That’s my theory, anyway. Read on and see if you agree.

You know, when I watched Community Health Systems and HCA and Tenet doing their little dances on the catwalk a few years ago, tendering offers and buying up sinking ships, I thought hey, that’s what big chains do. Didn’t register much.

One year ago, when I watched VC firm Cerberus Capital Management pick up Boston’s Caritas Christi chain, I saw signs of hospital desperation. After all, VC firms don’t sink their money into companies that offer a small, predictable return;  in this case, they acquired financially distressed properties with a very substantial upside.

So, what of this year?  Merger mania continues $7.3 billion of total healthcare-related M&A this year. (For more background, check out this hospital M&A list from business information provider Hoover’s. It’s been a wild year, and next year is likely to keep up the pace.

I’m not really surprised by the merger mess, and I doubt you are either. After all, hospitals have been running at minimal or even negative margins for many years, and now that health reform is breathing down everyone’s necks the pressure is climbing. The question is what this means for the industry.

Consider that one John Reiboldt of investment bank Coker Capital Advisers called the single stand-alone hospital a “concept of the past” at this year’s HIMSS event. Even if he’s wrong — or ahead of himself — the folks in his industry  are clearly poised to strike. And they’ll be making offers beleaguered single- and small-chain hospitals can’t refuse, capice?

Hospital Strategic Partnerships Avoid Mergers, But Create Other Pain Points

Posted on November 21, 2011 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

This is one of those periods in health biz history when M&A looks especially attractive.  What CEO wouldn’t give a second thought to getting acquired and picking up a bundle of cash when they’re struggling to survive?

In fact, one attorney with a national health care law firm argues that that as many as 50 to 60 percent of doctors and hospitals are looking for partnership opportunities of late, in part because health reform encourages consolidation.

The question is whether the institutions can put aside their differences long enough to talk business — particularly if they have dueling missions (such as religious charity vs. profit). Not only that, it’s not clear whether partnerships will meet their needs for long, as we’ll discuss below.

Given their druthers, many institutions would prefer to stick it out on their own and do things their own way. And despite the urge to merge, many hospitals are keeping their independence through strategic partnerships, notes Becker’s Hospital Review.

It’s hard to argue that partnerships can have their advantages, as the Becker’s piece notes. Hospitals can cut overhead costs by sharing services and staffing, while expanding on their local reach and adding services they might lack.

Partners can also come together to shore up specific service lines without having to invest heavily on their own. That was the purpose of a recent agreement between Saint Vincent Health Center in Erie, PA and the Cleveland Clinic, which are teaming to further boost the reputation of their already high-profile organizations in cardiac and neurological services, according to the Becker’s piece.

And hospital partners can save big bucks by rolling out the all-but-mandatory EMR system together, too.  Not only do the hospitals save bucks on staffing and technical expenses, they also end up sharing clinical data by default. Ideally, they’ll provide higher-quality care and save money by avoiding duplicate services.

Hospital partnerships may make it easier to build an effective Accountable Care Organization, too. After all, it’s easier to share data and coordinate treatment if you already have a trusting relationship in place, particularly if you’re already integrated clinically.

That being said, partnership building comes with its own set of frustrations. Take last year’s relationship struck by Reston, WA-based Providence Health & Services and Seattle-based Swedish Health Services.

To get along, the two parties had to set up a complicated structure letting Providence’s 27 hospitals keep their Catholic mission, while the five Swedish hospitals stayed non-religious. The two will work together using the Epic EMR to work together on shared best practices and population health.

And that’s far from their biggest headache. Ultimately, hospitals won’t save the kind of money they’d like to save, nor build new business the way they’d hope to, without completing a real merger. At that point, things can get expensive and even more complicated, as individual IDNs or facilities fight to keep key partners of their strategy in place.

Meanwhile, the hospitals in question may find that merging doesn’t meet regulatory approval. Hey, look at what happened when ProMedica Health System of Toledo and nearby St. Luke’s Hospital decided to get hitched. The $1.7B ProMedica chain, has 11 hospitals in Ohio and Michigan, came riding to the financially-ailing St. Luke’s rescue with a $35 million investment in August 2010.

Since then, though, the FTC has cracked down hard on ProMedica, arguing that the deal unfairly monopolizes the Toledo market,  in particularly by raising its share of the inpatient obstetrical services market to 80 percent. (Hey, ask your friendly editor and I have to admit that the FTC’s argument has some merit.)

So, where can hospitals turn if they want to thread their way through the current hospital business climate?

Well, at least one model — promoted by organizations like Paradigm Physician Partners and the LHP Hospital Group — have rolled out a model in which, as privately held companies, they form joint ventures with and sink capital into non-profit hospitals and health systems. LHP, which holds joint interest in some or all of the hospital’s operations through an LLC,  recently closed a deal with Pocatello, ID-based Portneuf Medical Center.

I predict that hospitals will find new ways to take in investment without giving up equity or their non-profit status. If new models pop up on my viewscreen I’ll let you know — I think this’ll be a hot new transaction strategy.

 

Hospitals play unfair games with Medicare observation status

Posted on November 14, 2011 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Most hospital visitors don’t care a whole lot whether they’re classed as inpatients or outpatients  — unless it affects the size of their bill. But lately, many patients are getting hit with unexpected fees after spending days in a hospital, thanks to tricks hospitals are playing in an effort to lower their readmission rate numbers, a newly-filed lawsuit contends.

These days, hospitals are under intense pressure to lower readmission rates, as such rates figure into their ratings on various types of quality scales.  In some cases, of course, they have no direct control of this number, as readmissions often have far more to do with the care they receive from community physicians and their willingness to comply with discharge instructions.

But ever-resourceful administrators have found a loophole that allows them to rejigger the admissions numbers. Under Medicare rules, they’re allowed to keep patients on “observation status,” deliver care and let patients go without ever classing them as inpatients. All of which might be well and good, except that if patients are in a hospital for days, they rack up a big bill — one they’re expected to pay far more of if the visit is billed as outpatient care under Medicare Part B.

Even more delightful for these patients, the fact that they haven’t logged three or more “real” inpatient days means that Medicare won’t pay for follow-up in a skilled nursing facility after discharge. So seniors either do without, or end up having the state pay through Medicaid.

Nice way to look out for patients, guys. Being old and sick and scared isn’t bad enough; now seniors have to wonder if their hospital costs are paid for even with Medicare coverage in place.

With this kind of mumblety-peg becoming fairly common, a consumer group called Center for Medicare Advocacy has filed a lawsuit to call a halt to the fun. The group is asking CMS to simply end observation status as a billable category.

While I sympathize with hospitals to some degree, who are also hoping to dodge scrutiny from the RECs by avoiding inpatient claim reviews, setting up seniors for high costs by playing unfair games is bad for you, the industry and the patient. Cut it out.

Adding mini-hospital resolves clash between religious, secular facilities

Posted on August 31, 2011 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

As secular, for-profit hospital chains merge with rule-bound religious facilities, patients are facing restrictions on their care that they hadn’t faced before. While for-profit hospitals will perform virtually any legal medical procedure, hospitals owned by religious institutions often impose faith-based limits on the treatments they will offer, with some refusing to provide services like emergency contraception for rape victims, vasectomies or tubal ligations.

However, one Louisville, KY based hospital may have found a compromise that could sidestep the issues entirely. The University of Louisville, which is poised to merge with Catholic-owned St. Mary’s Healthcare, plans to build what it calls a “hospital within a hospital” within St. Mary’s. The mini-hospital, which should cost about $15 million, will provide services that St. Mary’s will not.

U of L officials admit that building the special unit won’t be easy. For one thing, the university will have to get a separate hospital operating license for the unit, and hire a new group of employees.  Not only that, the tension between what the mini-hospital is doing and what St. Mary’s will permit will inevitably be something of a distraction.

Some critics, including state Attorney General Jack Conway, argue that the merger may not be such a good idea if U of L has to spend $15 million just to make it happen. After all, they note, the same $15 million could be used to pay for the care of the poor and uninsured.

As I see it, though, these objections are mostly posturing. The reality is that conflicts like this will crop up across the U.S., as there’s no end in sight to the country’s massive wave of hospital mergers.

I’m glad to see that U of L might have found a way of resolving its differences with St. Mary’s without the two sides coming to blows. Sure, it may be a bit messy, but if it allows the hospitals to pool their resources effectively, I hope other hospital dealmakers will consider this approach.  Building the hospital-within-a-hospital is certainly better then letting the issue fester.