MercyOne releases statement about split with Medical Center Anesthesiologists
Last week it was announced that MercyOne was parting ways with long-time anesthesia partner, Medical Center Anesthesiologists (MCA). According to an email sent to MercyOne staff obtained by WHO 13, the split stemmed from MercyOne's transition to TogetherCare/ Epic Go Live, an electronic medical record system.
MCA President-Elect Dr. Vincent Brinker told WHO 13 that the MCA knew about the transition to Epic but identified issues with the system. Dr. Brinker said the MCA provided temporary solutions to the issues, but MercyOne disagreed with those solutions, and ultimately decided to part ways.
Exile Brewing Company wins gold at world beer competition
Now, MercyOne is releasing a statement addressing the issue. It reads:
Based on recent social media and news coverage, we recognize the need to share the broader situation of the MercyOne and MCA relationship to provide more accurate context for our community. MercyOne has a long history of providing exceptional health care and we are committed to continue providing that level of care and experience to our patients. In March, Medical Center Anesthesiologists (MCA) contacted MercyOne providing 180-day termination of their contract. To keep our partnership in place, MCA required MercyOne to provide more than double our financial support, forcing us to prudently request proposals from other organizations. Additionally, MCA was unwilling to chart patient status information during surgery using downtime procedures until MercyOne transitions to new technology for approximately six weeks.
Ultimately, the decisions from MCA have led MercyOne to seek a new partnership with Vituity, a physician-owned entity. 'Vituity's mission is to improve lives. We work closely with local partners to ensure continuity of care, expand access, and create positive, lasting impact in the communities we serve,' says Vituity CEO Imamu Tomlinson, MD. 'At the heart of our culture is a deep commitment to empowering clinicians — so they can provide the best possible care and find purpose and fulfillment in the work they do every day.'
The goal for MercyOne during this transition is to keep MCA providers in the new model to provide the same excellent service to our patients, our colleagues, and our community. Surgical clinical quality at MercyOne Des Moines is outstanding and achieves best in class results. Vituity is committed to continuing this tradition of clinical excellence.
MercyOne
After May 31, the MCA will no longer provide services to MercyOne Des Moines hospital downtown and Mercy Medical Center-West Lakes in West Des Moines.
Metro News:
Juvenile assaulted at Walnut Creek Campus in West Des Moines
MercyOne releases statement about split with Medical Center Anesthesiologists
Exile Brewing Company wins gold at world beer competition
Some metro trails closed because of flash flooding
Des Moines churches can act as emergency homeless shelters following council approval
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Former BLS commissioner explains damage of Trump's BLS firing
President Trump's surprise firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) commissioner has raised concerns about potential political interference in labor data. William Beach, former BLS commissioner and Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC) senior fellow in economics, joins to explain how jobs data is collected and why the integrity of the process is critical to public trust. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination. I guess to start, Bill, let me just get your reaction on that news of Trump firing the BLS chief. What do you make of it, Bill? How important is it? What's at stake? I was I was very surprised when he did that. I, in fact, it caught me when I was in my pickup truck. I had to I had to come over to the side and just sat there for about 40 minutes fielding calls. Uh, so, what do I make of it? Well, it first off, it damages BLS a bit because as your previous experts pointed out, uh, now, there's this uh this cover, this uh this appearance that there may be some bias, and that there may be some people working inside BLS to shape the numbers. I can tell you that it's simply not true and and it's it's just simply not the case that the commissioner, especially the commissioner, has anything to do with the preparation of the numbers or the estimation of the numbers. Much more likely, there's some senior person deep inside the bowels might, but the commissioner's just completely locked out of that thing, but the damage is done. Uh, even if St. Peter was the nominee and that was approved in committee and on the floor of the Senate, there would still be this this possibility in people's minds who don't follow BLS that closely, that, "Well," you you know, "Uh, a poor month, maybe 25,000 jobs." And they'll say, "Well, it it could have been a lot worse, and it probably was a lot worse, but St. Peter raised the number." So, uh yeah, we're going to take a long time to recover from this. I hope we can recover in a shorter amount of time than I'm I'm expecting, but I think damage was done. Can you walk us through, Bill, how does BLS collect the data? Can you walk us through that process? Well, sure, there're two surveys, and the survey we're talking about, the revisions, the big revisions, is a survey of business establishments. You know, somewhere around 600,000. The number varies from month to month. These are surveyed. This is a survey, and as a consequence, uh the it is a sample of the entire 12 million firms that are out there. So, we collect that sample in the time period in which the 12th of the month occurs. That should be a payroll period, with the 12th of the month, the date in there. And then the sample begins to come in. By the end of the first month, we have about 68% of that sample in, and it's on the basis of that that the estimate is done. So, on the basis of about 68 65 to 70% of the returned sample. Now, you notice I didn't say 100%. Um, that's because some firms don't get their sample in, so it the period of collection is kept open for 2 more months. Uh, by the end of the second month, we have about 83% of the sample in. By the end of the third month, we have 91 to 95% of the sample in, so it's a very complete survey. That sample is collected at the regional level, sent to the National Office. In the National Office, which is here in Washington, now at the Suitland Federal Center, that the there are people who take the sample return and using formulas, mathematics, statistics, they expand that sample up to hit national targets for, say, individual industries, like banking or finance or something of that nature. And then, on the basis of those, we sum it all up, and that's the national number that's reported first Friday. That's the 73,000 additional net jobs in the economy. So, that's basically how it's done. Related Videos How Wall Street & DC are reacting to Trump's BLS firing Fmr. Commerce Sec. Wilbur Ross explains Trump's BLS suspicions Trump to announce new Fed governor & BLS head this week Bill Dudley on Fed Disagreement, BLS Data Quality Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Verge
4 days ago
- The Verge
Google has just two weeks to begin cracking open Android, it admits in emergency filing
Yesterday, when Epic won its Google antitrust lawsuit for a second time, it wasn't quite clear how soon Google would need to start dismantling its affirmed illegal monopoly. Today, Google admits the answer is: 14 days. Google has just 14 days to enact major changes to its Google Play app store, and the way it does business with phonemakers, cellular carriers, and app developers, unless it wins an emergency stay (pause) from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as it continues to appeal. It must stop forcing apps to use Google Play Billing, allow app developers to freely steer their users to other platforms, and limit the perks it can offer in exchange for preinstalled apps, among other changes. Those changes would not yet include Epic's biggest wins. They don't yet force Google to carry rival app stores within the Google Play Store, or to share its full app catalog with those rival stores, so don't expect the Epic Games Store or the Microsoft Xbox Store to appear inside Google Play quite yet. When he issued the permanent injunction to begin cracking open Android, Judge James Donato gave Google eight months to come up with a 'narrowly tailored' system of safety and security procedures before it would be forced to carry rival app stores, and Google has seven and a half months left now the previous stay has been lifted. So rival app stores won't appear inside Google Play until 2026 at the earliest. But according to Google's emergency stay request, it believes other changes are required far faster: 'the remedies in 4-7, 9-10, and 13 of the District Court's injunction will go into effect in 14 days.' Google claims this is an emergency because it'll have a 'significant impact' on 'millions of Google's users and over 500,000 app developers—as well as Google itself,' and that 'requiring these changes to be imposed in only 14 days would expose users and developers to substantial risks and jeopardize the entire Android ecosystem.' So, which remedies are 4-7, 9, 10, and 13? They're the ones that: Some of these provisions mirror changes that Epic scored in its otherwise mostly unsuccessful antitrust suit against Apple. They take on what are known as anti-steering rules — policies that, now in two major cases, courts have agreed unfairly limit developers' access to a competitive market. I've copied each of those required remedies out of Judge Donato's injunction so you can read for yourself: 4. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not share revenue generated by the Google Play Store with any person or entity that distributes Android apps, or has stated that it will launch or is considering launching an Android app distribution platform or store. 5. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not condition a payment, revenue share, or access to any Google product or service, on an agreement by an app developer to launch an app first or exclusively in the Google Play Store. 6. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not condition a payment, revenue share, or access to any Google product or service, on an agreement by an app developer not to launch on a third-party Android app distribution platform or store a version of an app that includes features not available in, or is otherwise different from, the version of the app offered on the Google Play Store. 7. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not condition a payment, revenue share, or access to any Google product or service, on an agreement with an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or carrier to preinstall the Google Play Store on any specific location on an Android device. 9. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not require the use of Google Play Billing in apps distributed on the Google Play Store, or prohibit the use of in-app payment methods other than Google Play Billing. Google may not prohibit a developer from communicating with users about the availability of a payment method other than Google Play Billing. Google may not require a developer to set a price based on whether Google Play Billing is used. 10. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not prohibit a developer from communicating with users about the availability or pricing of an app outside the Google Play Store, and may not prohibit a developer from providing a link to download the app outside the Google Play Store. 13. Within thirty days of the date of this order, the parties will recommend to the Court a three-person Technical Committee. Epic and Google will each select one member of the Technical Committee, and those two members will select the third member. After appointment by the Court, the Technical Committee will review disputes or issues relating to the technology and processes required by the preceding provisions. If the Technical Committee cannot resolve a dispute or issue, a party may ask the Court for a resolution. The Technical Committee may not extend any deadline set in this order, but may recommend that the Court accept or deny a request to extend. Each party will bear the cost of compensating their respective party-designated committee member for their work on the committee. The third member's fees will be paid by the parties in equal share. We've asked Google how any of these remedies might 'expose users and developers to substantial risks,' and we'll let you know what we hear. The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel denied Google's earlier motion for a stay, and affirmed that all parts of Judge Donato's permanent injunction were valid and appropriate, so I'm not sure why it would approve this stay instead. However, Google is signaling that it could appeal to both the full Ninth Circuit, and to the Supreme Court. You can read Google's full emergency stay request below: Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Sean Hollister Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Android Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Antitrust Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Apps Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Google Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Mobile Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All News Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Policy Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tech
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Google loses appeal in antitrust battle with Fortnite maker
A federal appeals court has upheld a jury verdict condemning Google's Android app store as an illegal monopoly, clearing the way for a federal judge to enforce a potentially disruptive shakeup that's designed to give consumers more choices. The unanimous ruling issued Thursday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivers a double-barreled legal blow for Google, which has been waylaid in three separate antitrust trials that resulted in different pillars of its internet empire being declared as domineering scofflaws monopolies since late 2023. The unsuccessful appeal represents a major victory for video game maker Epic Games, which launched a legal crusade targeting Google's Play Store for Android apps and Apple's iPhone app store nearly five years ago in an attempt to bypass exclusive payment processing systems that charged 15% to 30% commissions on in-app transactions. The jury's December 2023 rebuke of Google's app store for Android-powered smartphones began a cascade of setbacks that includes monopoly judgements against the company's ubiquitous search engine last year and the technology underlying its digital ad network earlier this year. Although not as lucrative as Google's search engine or ad system, the Play Store for Android apps has long been a gold mine that generated billions of dollars in annual revenue by taking a 15% to 30% cut from in-app transactions funneled through the company's own payment processing system. Following a month-long trial, a nine-person jury determined that Google had rigged its system to thwart alternative app stores from offering better deals to consumers and software developers. That verdict resulted in U.S. District Judge James Donato ordering Google to tear down digital walls shielding the Play Store from competition, triggering the company's appeal to overturn the jury's finding and void the judge's mandated shakeup. But a three-judge panel that heard Google's appeal in February rejected its lawyers' contention that Donato erred by allowing the case to be determined by a jury that deviated from the market definition outlined by another federal judge who mostly sided with Apple in Epic's case against the iPhone maker's app store. Epic's lawsuit 'was replete with evidence that Google's anticompetitive conduct entrenched its dominance, causing the Play Store to benefit from network effects,' the judges wrote in the decision. The ruling 'will significantly harm user safety, limit choice, and undermine the innovation that has always been central to the Android ecosystem,' Google's vice president of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said in a statement. Unless Google can extend the enforcement delay placed on Donato's order issued last October, the company will have to begin an overhaul that includes making the Play Store's entire library of more than 2 million Android apps available to would-be rivals and also help distribute the alternative options. Google has argued that the required revisions will raise privacy and security risks by exposing consumers to scam artists and hackers masquerading as legitimate app stores. But Epic's lawyers have ridiculed Google's warnings about the changes as scare tactics in a desperate attempt to protect the fortunes of its corporate parent Alphabet Inc. Although Epic fell short in its attempt to have the iPhone's app store declared a monopoly, that case resulted in a judge issuing an order that required Apple to surrender exclusive control over the payment processing of in-app transactions and allow links to alternative systems without collecting a commission. Besides being hit with Donato's order, Google still faces further trouble ahead that could leave an even bigger dent in its finances. As part of the effort to address Google's illegal monopoly in search, a federal judge is weighing a proposal by the U.S. Justice Department that would require the sale of its Chrome web browser and ban the multibillion dollar deals that company has been making with Apple and others to lock-in its search engine as the main gateway to the internet. Google is also facing a proposed breakup of its advertising technology as part of the countermeasures to its monopoly in that business. A trial on that proposal is scheduled to begin in September. Liedtke writes for the Associated Press.
