The City Council and Cookeville Regional Medical Center expressed a high level of concern two weeks ago around a piece of legislation that would make it unlawful for CRMC to make health care contracts with providers where state employees are involved.  

In a Tennessee House bill sponsored by Rep. Charles Curtiss and a sister Senate Bill sponsored by Sen. Charlotte Burks, the legislation, which is limited to the actions of Cookeville Regional Medical Center, would have significant impact on the hospital and community, according to CRMC CEO Bernie Mattingly. 

Rep. Fincher addressed some of the concerns around the legislation and explained his support for the bills:

"For years I have received complaints from state employees who wanted to go to other providers - Premier Diagnostic Imaging is the one I heard about the most - but can't because Cookeville Regional Medical Center (the Hospital) has abused its market share to negotiate an exclusive contract with CIGNA.

For years I relayed these complaints to the Hospital.  The Hospital ignored them.

For example, I recently heard from a state employee who needed an ultrasound.  Premier was ready to do it that day, but the Hospital could not get her in for 3 days.

When my constituents tell me there is a problem, I work to fix it.

Sen. Burks, Rep. Curtiss and I decided it was time to stand up for state employees on this issue and choice in health care generally.  They have sponsored this bill and I support it. 

Rep. Curtiss is sponsoring the bill because many state employees in his community are affected by the bill, and he has greater seniority than me in Nashville, both in the Legislature and on the Health Committee.

I have represented both the Hospital and Premier in cases in the past.  I have represented the hospital in MANY more cases than Premier - probably 10 times as many or more.  You can check the Putnam County General Sessions Court records from 1998 on and see the literally thousands of cases I have handled for the Hospital.

Nothing in this bill benefits me at all.  Frankly, I am stuck in the middle between my friends at the Hospital and at Premier, but I can take the pressure in order to help state employees.

I am going to fight for what is right regardless of who gets upset.  I owe that to the people who elected me.
There is no conflict that would prevent me from voting on this bill.  It affects the people of my district and I will vote on it if and when it comes before me.

It seems like the hospital is trying to make Cookeville a "company town" for health care.  They want to own the entire market.  I don't think this is good for the Upper Cumberland.  The people of the Upper Cumberland deserve choice in health care, and I will keep fighting for it.

I think that the bill is limited to Putnam County because that is where the problem is.  We have not been made aware of other localities with the problem of a monopoly hospital trying to drive other providers out of business through the use of exclusive contracts through state employee health plans.

The bill only applies to state employee health plans.  The Hospital is free to try exclusive contracts with private insurance providers.  I have a number of questions that believe the hospital might address:  

1.  Why does the Hospital allow state employee CIGNA plan members to get treatment at places like Perimeter Surgery Center and Cookeville Surgery Center?
2.  Why does the Hospital ask for special treatment from the state, in the form of "non-profit" status when it makes millions each year in profit, and in the form of an antitrust exemption - a special provision under the law that lets them engage in otherwise illegal anticompetitive business tactics - but insist on hoarding all state employees?
3.  How much will this competition actually cost the Hospital, compared to its $204 million operating budget?  I suspect it is a pittance.
4.  Is the Hospital's overreaction motivated by the ill will the Hospital has toward Premier due to several years of litigation?
5.  Why is the Hospital afraid of competition?"