GoPort
Of this there can be no dispute – that it would simply make no sense to leave Quonset/Davisville as it is – an area that holds great promise for the future economic development of our state; but one that could lie dormant, with some industry and some facilities scattered among fields of overgrown grass and rows of decaying buildings. GoPort, the coalition of business and labor that banded together last week to promote a container port at Quonset while preserving and even improving the environment, we hope will be a catalyst in producing a final decision on just what will happen with this valuable property.
We strongly believe that we cannot sacrifice the environmental integrity of Narragansett Bay that is so crucial to maintaining our superior quality of life here. But we also believe that development of a port at Quonset does not necessarily mean the contamination of the environment.
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
Mayor Vincent Cianci Jr. has suggested that a Quonset Port might spell the death knell for Providence’s Port- not necessarily a bad thing in his mind as he seeks other development for the Providence waterfront. We wonder, as we weigh environmental benefits, how valuable it might be to reclaim Providence’s waterfront from oil tanks and scrap metal heaps.
As labor and business have come together on so many issues, so can the environmentalists and the economic developers agree on a plan to create an environmentally sound Quonset Port. If they do, all Rhode Islanders will benefit.
Hospital legislation
Rhode Island’s relatively new hospital sales legislation has contributed to the demise of a plan by for-profit Tenet Healthcare Corp. to purchase the not-for-profit Landmark Medical Center in Woonsocket.
Proponents of that merger – primarily Landmark President Robert D. Walker – lament that the failed agreement puts an end to competition in health care in the state, and deprives the communities the hospital serves of many potential financial benefits, including millions in taxes.
Opponents to for-profit health care institutions called the decision a victory, apparently believing that not-for-profit institutions remain more responsible to the community’s interests, while not-for-profits remain more committed to shareholders.
But health care official after health care official, from the major insurers to doctors to those who oversee medical associations, agree that there is little difference between for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.
Believe it or not, the doctors, nurses and technicians at for-profits and not-for-profits receive the same training, the same certification, and are subject to the same licensing and review requirements.
Believe it or not, the institutions are subject to the same oversight, and the same profit and loss pressures, and buy their equipment from the same places.
And, believe it or not, a review of those various national organizations that measure quality of care, find exemplary institutions among the ranks of both for-profits and not-for-profits.
Lost in the political struggle between those who champion not-for-profits and those who favor a more open system, is the need for a competitive marketplace that assures a better quality of care for the customer, the community.
It is bizarre that in this state, and in a society that generally rewards those who rise above others in a competitive world, its largest non-government industry would be subjected to a different set of standards that essentially eliminate competition. With for-profits a target and likely out of the picture, and the Lifespan-Care New England merger on the docket – and approval expected – where will competition come from? Who is it that will be there to monitor and demand quality care?
What alternatives will the independents have but to streamline services to a specific niche, beg for admittance to the Lifespan-Care New England network, or simply fade into oblivion?
It is essential for the legislature to revisit this hospital sales legislation, to rid itself of this ludicrous notion that there is a substantive difference between for-profit and not-for-profit health care institutions, and to redesign a law that is aimed at maintaining the competitive atmosphere we demand of every other industry, and aimed at assuring that all of our health care institutions deliver the most cost effective and highest quality care possible.
