logo
Businessman calls for expanding CCM Health child care project in Montevideo, Minnesota

Businessman calls for expanding CCM Health child care project in Montevideo, Minnesota

Yahoo13-05-2025

May 13---- A $2.4 million project to develop a child care facility for the employees of CCM Health in Montevideo is a great idea, but it falls short of what the community needs to accomplish, according to a Montevideo business owner and critic of the health care system.
Kevin Wald told the
on May 6 that he thinks it may be illegal for the publicly owned health care system to restrict use of the child care facility to its employees. He raised his concerns to the Montevideo City Council members one night earlier as well. Brian Lovdahl, CEO of CCM Health, refutes that.
Wald is urging the city and county to expand the scope of the child care project to address a community-wide need for the services. As the CEO of Ritalka Inc., Wald is one of the community's leading private sector employers.
The need for child care is one of the four top concerns facing the community and could be addressed with a larger-scale project, Wald told the commissioners. The city of Montevideo has identified a shortage of 75 child care spots in the community, and the shortage is much larger when considering
as a whole, he said.
The CCM Health project should be expanded to accommodate 110 children, as compared to 70 as is now planned, he told the commissioners. He said he believes that the project could be expanded for up to 110 children if the city and county each invested $800,000 toward it.
Wald said one half of the total openings could be made available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis, and the public facility would be in compliance with the laws.
The Chippewa County Board of Commissioners and Montevideo City Council members approved bids for the child care project in early March. CCM Health is jointly owned by the two local governmental units. The project is aiming for an October completion.
CCM Health's Lovdahl told the West Central Tribune, in response to Wald's statements, that construction is already underway on the facility. To expand its size now would require a major redesign and relicensing.
It would also adversely affect the operational finances. A revised proposal would eliminate the ability to treat the center as an allowable department for required Medicare cost reporting and create a financial burden on CCM Health, Lovdahl told the Tribune in an email on Monday.
Wald said one of his main concerns is the use of Medicaid or Medicare funds towards offsetting costs associated with the child care operations. He does not believe those funds can be used in any way toward child care services, even if indirectly.
Lovdahl responded that
is a designated Critical Access Hospital and reimbursed under Medicare cost reporting rules that state: "Costs of services such as employee cafeterias and day-care centers for the children of employees, which are maintained for the convenience of the provider, are includable as allowable costs to the extent they are reasonable."
Lovdahl continued, in response to Wald's concerns: "This federal guidance has long supported the inclusion of child care centers as allowable operational costs. We work closely with our auditing firm, which regularly evaluates compliance in this area."
Lovdahl also pointed out that the project was developed over the course of a year and vetted through appropriate public channels in the community beginning in January.
When bids for the project were awarded in March, Lovdahl told the commissioners that the center will replace an existing child care center that the hospital operates for employees in the ambulance building. He emphasized that the child care service is very important to the health care system's ability to recruit and retain employees.
And as a point of fact, the commissioners learned just prior to Wald's arrival at their meeting that the availability of child care was an important factor in the recent recruitment of a new health care provider by CCM Health.
Wald told the commissioners that restricting the child care center for employee use is discrimination.
"Discrimination in the use of a public-owned facility for any reason is not legal," he said.
He cited a number of specific federal laws dating from the 1964 Civil Rights Act to more recent acts specific to child care.
"Is it fair and right to exclude people who are paying for the facility?" asked Wald. "We are creating a tiered economy where public-owned jobs have first-rate facilities, but private sector jobs (who pay all the bills) are second-class citizens."
No discrimination laws are being violated, Lovdahl reported to the West Central Tribune. Anti-discrimination laws apply to protected classes, such as race, religion, sex, disability, age and other categories, he said.
"Restricting access to an internal benefit — like child care — based on employment status does not violate these laws," he stated.
The child care facility is licensed by the state Department of Human Services and operates as a staff-only benefit, similar to an employee gym or cafeteria. Families pay for the service directly. The facility is not publicly funded nor open to the general public.
There is no prohibition under Minnesota law — including
of Minnesota Statutes, which governs municipal hospitals — against offering staff-only benefits, Lovdahl added.
Wald also charged that CCM Health cannot allow doctors to use the child care facility if its use is restricted to employees, since they work under contract.
CCM Health is served by physicians who are employees and others who are independent contractors, according to Lovdahl. The state Department of Human Services allows contracted staff to be included in employer-sponsored child care programs if they work under the direction of the license holder, he explained.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Big, Beautiful Bill': When Will the Senate Vote on Trump Legislation?
'Big, Beautiful Bill': When Will the Senate Vote on Trump Legislation?

Newsweek

time42 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

'Big, Beautiful Bill': When Will the Senate Vote on Trump Legislation?

Based on factual reporting, incorporates the expertise of the journalist and may offer interpretations and conclusions. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump is working to push his "big, beautiful bill" through the Senate in the face of resistance from some Senate Republicans and increasing criticism from Elon Musk. Republicans hold slender majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, meaning that only a few lawmakers can rebel and vote against the bill without threatening its chances of passing: Republicans hold 220 of the 435 seats (with two vacancies) in the House and 53 of the 100 in the Senate. Some of those lawmakers have already raised serious concerns about the bill—more in the Senate than in the House, where the bill passed by just one vote—which has put its passage in doubt. While the Senate can theoretically pass the bill at any time—meaning it accepts the House version as is—it is highly unlikely to pass it any sooner than July 4th, which is already a very ambitious timeline for the chamber, as Republicans remain divided on several aspects. What Is the 'Big, Beautiful Bill'? Congress has the power of the purse, meaning funding and spending at the various agencies across the government must receive approval from both chambers. Normally, each agency and congressional committee submits separate bills that receive approval, but Trump is eager to enact his significant financial and social policy reformations. Trump urged congressional Republicans to pass one bill that includes all the funding he needs to enact his raft of various policies, including major tax reforms—including the permanent extension of his 2017 tax cuts and new deductions for tips, overtime pay, car loan interest and more. The bill will also raise the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap to $30,000 and introduce savings and investment accounts for children born during his second administration. The spending proposal also includes a major overhaul of Medicaid—including work requirements for recipients above the poverty line—and restrictions on services, such as cutting any funding for child gender-affirming care and nonprofits that provide abortion services. Changes to education and student loan funding are also included in the bill, like heightened eligibility requirements for Pell Grants and increased taxes on private university endowments. The "big, beautiful bill" features a $150 billion increase in the Department of Defense budget as well. U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks to reporters outside the White House on June 4 in Washington, D.C., while President Donald Trump, inset, is pictured in the State Dining Room at the White House... U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks to reporters outside the White House on June 4 in Washington, D.C., while President Donald Trump, inset, is pictured in the State Dining Room at the White House on June 5. More //When Did the Bill Pass the House? The House of Representatives passed the bill on May 22 by one vote, 215-214, as two Republicans—Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio—voted along with the Democrats against the bill. Representative Andy Harris of Maryland voted "present," while Representatives David Schweikert of Arizona and Andrew Garbarino of New York did not vote at all. What's the Senate's Time Frame for a Vote? Congress was meant to pass a budget bill by mid-March to avoid a government shutdown but had to settle for a "continuing resolution," giving lawmakers until the end of September to pass a budget. With the thin margins, the Senate voted and passed a measure to allow them to use reconciliation, which allows Congress to pass its budget bill with a simple majority rather than the usual two-thirds. Despite that considerable time frame, Trump has suggested that the Senate should pass the bill by July 4th, playing into the president's love of patriotic displays and tying his policy decisions into nationalism—such as calling the day he announced his reciprocal tariffs "Liberation Day." What Has Musk Said About the Bill? Musk has lashed out against the bill since he left the Department of Government Efficiency, not only lambasting the fiscal plan but those who voted in support of it. Among his various posts in the past couple of days, Musk has written on X: "False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!" "Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill." "In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful. Everyone knows this!" "Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill."

Trump's new budget bill hides an assault on hospice
Trump's new budget bill hides an assault on hospice

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's new budget bill hides an assault on hospice

President Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' which passed the House with almost unanimous Republican support on May 22, mandates $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. This is a cruel assault on some of the most vulnerable Americans that will strip them of vital health care services. It will also take an axe to hospice, which relies on Medicare reimbursement to function. Since 1982, when Medicare first began covering hospice, Americans have turned to it for essential end-of-life services that address the specialized needs of the dying and allow for death with dignity. Our current system doesn't always run perfectly and would benefit from greater funding and support. I know this because when my mother was 99.5 years of age and less than six months away from her death, medical staff at our local hospice agency determined she was not, in fact, dying soon enough. Presumably adhering to Medicare guidelines, they callously discontinued our hospice services. The abrupt cessation of care prompted my debilitated mom's eviction from an assisted living facility. The chaotic aftermath necessitated medicine, schedule and equipment adjustments for her and delivered a massive blow to me, her primary caregiver. Fewer resources means this financially draining and emotionally wrenching situation will become more common — perhaps even the norm. The shifting demographics make the picture even bleaker. The U.S. is a rapidly aging population, with the number of Americans ages 65 and older expected to more than double over the next 40 years. At a time when we should be buttressing hospice services, our government is threatening to starve them. According to the Office of the Inspector General, 'About 1.7 million Medicare beneficiaries receive hospice care each year, and Medicare pays about $23 billion annually for this care.' Hospice is an interdisciplinary service that provides everything from pain relief to spiritual support to medication management to dietary consulting to mobility equipment to bereavement counseling. While the price tag may sound hefty and our current administration would like us to believe that public services are an unbearable financial burden, an investigation published in the Journal of American Medical Association Health Forum found that hospice saves Medicare money. Research shows that hospice significantly benefits dementia and cancer patients at the end of their lives. On May 19, 2025, the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society published a study of 51,300 assisted living residents that concluded, 'Higher frequency of hospice staff visits was associated with better perceived hospice quality. Policies supporting greater hospice staff engagement, including nonclinical staff, may enhance end-of-life care experiences for assisted living residents.' The report matters because the findings illuminate the humane need for both clinical and nonclinical treatment that provides for medical and emotional support as life ends. We all heard President Trump campaign on promises to protect Medicare, but Richard Fiesta, executive director of the advocacy group Alliance for Retired Americans, describes the ongoing national budget scene as 'an all-out assault on Medicare and Medicaid that will hurt older Americans in every community across the country.' And Shannon Benton, the executive director of the Senior Citizens League, another advocacy group, now warns that the potential Medicare cuts could lead to lower reimbursement rates. This would be disastrous for millions of Americans and would threaten to eradicate end-of-life care as we know common belief, hospices are not run by volunteers. Volunteers might become part-time visitors or assistants for a variety of tasks, but hospice administrations are led by professionals who are evaluated on financial performance and organizational viability. Palliative care is free to recipients and families and available at all income levels, but hospices are businesses, and they must raise sufficient funds through donations, gifts, bequests and reimbursements to compensate employees, repay loans, cover operating costs, and plan for exigencies. Simply put, much of that money comes from Medicare. Specialized care for the dying was introduced to the U.S. in 1963, when Yale University's then dean Florence Wald invited Dame Cicely Saunders of the U.K. to participate in a visiting lecture at Yale. At that time Saunders said, 'We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.' Four years later, in 1967, Saunders created St. Christopher's Hospice in the U.K. Later, in 1974, Florence Wald founded Connecticut Hospice in Branford, Connecticut — America's first hospice. Within five years and after several national conferences, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare acknowledged that hospices provided alternative care programs for Americans losing their lives to terminal illnesses. Federal hospice regulations were drafted. In 1982, Medicare added hospice care to its benefits, and in 1985, Medicare hospice coverage became permanent. With that, the U.S. recognized the right of its citizens to die with dignity. Forty years later, our government has signaled that a rollback of that right may be on the horizon. Eventually, my mother died in a highly regarded long-term care complex without hospice support and with no prescribed opioids. It was an unnecessarily excruciating death that exacerbated my and my family's grief. The trauma we suffered was destabilizing and healing from it was slow and difficult. If Trump's Orwellian-named 'big beautiful bill' passes the Senate, I fear our experience will have been an ugly preview of what is to come.

Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.

Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store