Say Hello to FSU Health
Florida State University has been given the green light by the state Board of Governors to issue $414 million in bonds to finance a new hospital in Panama City Beach as it brands its presence in Northwest Florida as FSU Health.
The FSU Board of Trustees approved the proposal hours before the Board of Governors gave final approval.
Project planning and design have not been completed but BOG documents show that the project, including design, construction, and equipment for a five-floor, 340,000 square foot facility, are projected to total $328 million.
The Panama City Beach hospital will initially open with 80 beds and four operating rooms to support orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, gynecology, and general surgery. FSU Health in Panama City's footprint will eventually be able to accommodate up to 600 beds.
The hospital will be built on an undeveloped 18-acre parcel of land donated by The St. Joe Co. adjacent to a new urgent care facility that Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare built called TMH Physician Partners and Urgent Care facility.
Documents show FSU intends to enter into a long-term lease and management agreement with TMH to manage day-to-day operations. TMH will make lease payments to FSU in an amount greater than or equal to the annual debt service of the bonds.
The approval comes as FSU and TMH, which have been operating under a memo of understanding, are at odds over the future of a City of Tallahassee-owned hospital and whether it should be transitioned into an academic teaching institution as part of FSU or continue to be run by TMH, which has a long term-lease with the city to manage the facility.
Hospital administrator and Board of Governors member Alan Levine said he normally doesn't involve himself in local disputes but took offense at TMH CEO Mark O'Bryant's comments to the local newspaper about the dispute.
O'Bryant told the Tallahassee Democrat that TMH is community-based and that its board comprises local residents. By contrast, he said, FSU is governed by an appointed board whose members are not local.
When asked whether FSU was trying to emulate the University of Florida, which operates its health care facilities in Gainesville and Jacksonville under the UF Health moniker, O'Bryant told the paper: 'I'm not sure that's the model you want. They don't really focus as much on the local community over there because they have a different mission. Their mission is for more academic research. So if you think about the whole population, people should be concerned.'
Levine, who is chairman, president, and CEO of Ballad Health, said he 'takes great offense to that comment.'
Levine told the BOG he compared charity and Medicaid care between UF Health and TMH and discovered that UF has three times as many Medicaid patients as TMH, with a 15% caseload versus 5%, respectively. Additionally, UF Health offers a financial assistance policy to provide charity care to people who earn 200% or less of the federal poverty level. TMH's financial assistance policy is set at 150% of the FPL.
'I don't think it's fair. If you were to go to Jacksonville or go to Gainesville and ask people whether or not our academic medical center cares about the local community and that's not what drives decisions they make, then you don't know much about academic medical centers,' Levine said.
He called O'Bryant's comments 'uneducated' and said, 'I do think something strong needs to be said to respond to that.'
Levine offered this unsolicited advice: 'FSU gets to decide who it partners are but I would strongly encourage their partner here in Tallahassee to rethink their position on that because it's not true.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
44 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Executive order to institutionalize homeless people defies data
President Trump's campaign against homeless people is not limited to the District of Columbia. On July 24, Trump issued an executive order titled 'Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets.' How exactly is that to be accomplished? 'Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment.' The order describes this approach as 'new,' 'compassionate' and 'evidence-based.' It is none of these things. The institutionalization of people with mental illness has a long and sordid history in this country. In 1970, there were nearly 370,000 people in state and county psychiatric hospitals. Conditions were atrocious. Consider Bryce Hospital in Tuscaloosa, Ala. Bryce housed approximately 5,000 people with only three psychiatrists on staff. Some have said that Bryce at that time resembled a warehouse more than a hospital. One journalist described it as a 'hellhole,' with human feces on the walls and urine soaking the floors. Photos show patients strapped to rocking chairs. To be sure, treatments are better now than they used to be. That may be why many doctors and others assume that involuntary hospitalization benefits patients beyond stabilizing an acute crisis. But there is little evidence of any such benefits. On the other hand, the 'revolving door' phenomenon is well-established. The key is connecting patients at discharge to resources in the community. Until that regularly happens, involuntary hospitalization amounts to just kicking the can down the road. Bryce Hospital now has only 268 adult beds, part of the much larger 'deinstitutionalization' movement all over the country. The goal of deinstitutionalization was to instead provide care in the community, but that mostly never materialized. As a result, there has already been a partial reinstitutionalization of sorts: the three largest psychiatric facilities in the United States today are the jails in Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. In 2020, there were fewer than 32,000 state and county psychiatric hospital beds, a drop of more than 90% since 1970. There are not nearly enough beds left for today's homeless population, nor is there the political will to build more high-quality inpatient facilities. The executive order's promise of 'humane treatment' is belied by the recent massive cuts to Medicaid. 'Civil commitment' suggests mental illness and hospitalization, but the order elsewhere pressures jurisdictions to criminalize homelessness — with prohibitions on 'urban camping,' for example. So jails and prisons, with little or no capacity to provide treatment, will do just fine. The military in D.C. is likewise ill-suited to the task. The order's appeal to 'compassion' would be laughable if it were not so unspeakably cruel. But perhaps public safety demands some action like this? That's a misconception. Incarcerating vast numbers of unhoused people would prevent only a small fraction of crime. As ABC 7 has reported: 'Crime involving homeless — that is, where either the suspect, the victim or both were homeless — makes up less than a tenth of all crime in L.A.' The homeless population in the city of Los Angeles in 2020 (a peak year) was about 40,000, and that year there were just 33 homicides involving a homeless suspect or victim. One 2015 study estimated that curing all active psychotic and mood disorders would eliminate just 4% of interpersonal violence. Of course, the calculus changes if being homeless is itself a crime. The Supreme Court opened the door to that possibility in a case last year. Now, Trump is driving a truck through it. 'Lock them all up!' is now a perfectly tailored crime-control measure, and wildly disproportionate at the same time. Notably, the executive order directs relevant agencies to end support for 'housing first' programs. As the name suggests, under this approach homeless individuals are quickly housed in the community and provided with in-home support services. Participants are not required to get sober or accept treatment in return for housing. Threshold requirements like these, no doubt well-intentioned, often exclude the people who need housing most and create barriers to sobriety, mental health care and employment. The 'housing first' approach more than pays for itself. A 2022 review of six studies in the United States found that each dollar spent on housing first saves the government $1.30, primarily in lower healthcare costs and less judicial involvement. But the total benefit of housing first is much higher. That's because benefit-cost studies do not include the value of stable housing for participants who would otherwise be homeless. Benefits of housing such as autonomy, privacy, security, comfort and warmth are omitted because they are hard to quantify. There is one bright spot in the order: its call to expand mental health and drug courts. Otherwise, the ideas in the executive order are not new, not compassionate and not evidence-based. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine worse housing policies. Fredrick E. Vars is a professor of law at the University of Alabama School of Law and author of the forthcoming book 'Through the Fire: How People With Mental Illness Are Empowering Each Other.'
Axios
44 minutes ago
- Axios
Mass. bill would require test strips for spiked drinks, hospital checks
Bar patrons in Massachusetts typically don't have access to test strips to spot illegally spiked drinks — and they might not get tested at the hospital if they are drugged. A group of survivors and a state lawmaker want to change that. Why it matters: Boston-area patrons, especially women, have reported being drugged in recent years with little to no resolution in sight. Between the lines: Survivors say they've been to hospitals only to be denied a drug test because they didn't show signs of being sexually assaulted — a decision that makes it even harder for police to prove a drink was spiked and track down suspects. State of play: A proposal by Sen. Paul Feeney, a Worcester Democrat, would authorize the Department of Public Health to make hospitals test people suspected of being drugged upon request, even if they haven't been sexually assaulted. The bill would also require the state alcohol commission to mandate the sale of test strips at venues, a rule they unsuccessfully tried to impose through DPH. It would also create a task force focusing on illegal drink spiking responses and interventions within DPH to study regulations for patient access to care after such an incident. What they're saying: Ilana Katz Katz, a Boston resident who was drugged while at the Sinclair Music Hall in 2022, says she wants to see test strips and even drink lids available at bars, similar to what's now required in California. "I feel like anything that could help someone not get drugged and raped in our communities throughout the commonwealth, we're responsible for that," she tells Axios. Zoom in: Feeney says the bill could help make venues safer and ensure people whose drinks get spiked can prove it and get the care they need at their local hospital. Representatives for Cambridge Health Alliance, Tufts Medical Center and Mass General Brigham said their emergency rooms do not have any specific policies in place regarding testing for drink spiking. Michael Morrison, an MGB spokesperson, said in a statement that health care workers "partner with each individual patient to determine the most appropriate approach and develop an individualized diagnostic and treatment plan." Morrison said that's because of limitations on available testing methods and because each patient may present symptoms differently. Context: This bill comes after lawmakers allocated $300,000 in the fiscal 2024 budget to fund test strips and a public awareness campaign, but it hasn't all come to fruition. The Department of Public Health spent the public awareness funding, rolling out a campaign on June 30. The department hasn't spent the other half after filing a report saying test strips' efficacy has "no evidence base." DPH also raised concerns that tests often only detect certain substances and have a "high likelihood of false positives and false negatives," referring to a 2013 article. Instead, DPH concluded, the substance used most often to make it easier to sexually assault someone is alcohol itself. Now, the public awareness campaign is focusing on encouraging staff and fellow customers to intervene. Yes, but: Survivors like Katz Katz say they still want the option to use test strips and similar tools. "This isn't just something that happens in alcohol. This happens in a cup of coffee, in a bottle of water in an Uber," she says.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
I rely on Medicaid to live. Trump's cuts make survival a privilege instead of a right.
When Congress cuts Medicaid, they aren't just targeting a program. They're threatening our ability to live, to care and to be cared for. I wake up every morning unsure if someone will be there to help me out of bed. That's the reality for many disabled people like me who rely on Medicaid. It's the program that allows me to live on my own terms – to work, create and contribute. But every year, my future is reduced to a line item politicians can vote on. The system was already failing us before these recent cuts. Getting enough hours felt like a battle. Navigating paperwork was a full-time job. The support I needed was out of reach – offered in theory, withheld in practice. My caregivers have other jobs and families. Coordinating support feels like solving a puzzle that keeps changing. When I can't make it work, I miss out. I cancel plans, skip opportunities, stay home. Not because I'm disabled, but because the system makes participation impossible. We recently marked two anniversaries: 35 years since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law and 60 years since Medicaid was created. These were meant to be moments of celebration. Instead, I spent those days at a 60-hour vigil outside the Capitol, protesting the Medicaid cuts buried inside what the Trump administration calls 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' I sat sweating in my wheelchair while they celebrated the ADA, honoring disability rights while gutting the program that makes those rights real. Trump's hollow gestures mask brutal cuts for people with disabilities The symbolism was hollow. The reality was brutal. Medicaid pays the caregivers who help me eat, bathe and start my day. Without that funding, that care disappears – and so do the jobs that provide it. Opinion: Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill victory tour hits major bump – voters hate it I've had a disability – muscular dystrophy – my entire life, and have relied on Medicaid throughout my adulthood. The former shaped my identity with pride. The latter turned my existence into a negotiation, where my needs are measured against cost and my future hinges on someone else's math and stock prices. In 2020, I moved out on my own during the COVID-19 pandemic and asked for more caregiving hours. I was denied. I appealed to my Medicaid provider but was ultimately rejected again, essentially because I was 'not disabled enough.' That's what it's like to live in a system where your basic needs are judged by people who don't understand your life. Millions of families are in the same impossible position – forced to choose between caregiving and working, between paying for help and paying rent. The wages are low and the hours are unpredictable. Without stability, how do you build a life? One of the harshest provisions, part of nearly $1 trillion in cuts, would force people with lifelong disabilities to reverify their Medicaid eligibility every six months – as if conditions like muscular dystrophy might just disappear. This isn't about fraud prevention. It's about making the process so exhausting that people give up or get left behind. Two years ago, my Medicaid office lost a form. They said I never submitted it and ended my coverage. I had to start over, submitting more than 400 pages of documents. I went two months without insurance or caregiving. It was terrifying. And this bill could make that nightmare the norm. Medicaid cuts will make care a luxury for Americans with disabilities The agenda behind these cuts reflects a cruel belief: that people like me are expendable. That our care is a luxury. That billionaires deserve tax breaks more than I deserve to go to the bathroom more than twice a day. But I've seen what's possible when we invest in care. I helped pass the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights in New Jersey because I know how essential care work is – and how deeply undervalued it remains. I've lost caregivers not because they didn't care, but because they couldn't afford to stay. Your Turn: Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work. | Opinion Forum Medicaid makes life possible. It funds home and community-based care not just for disabled people but also for older adults, parents and caregivers across the country. When Congress cuts Medicaid, they aren't just targeting a program. They're threatening our ability to live, to care and to be cared for. And here's the truth: You don't have to be disabled to need Medicaid. One accident, one diagnosis, one lost job – that's all it takes. When I couldn't get the care I needed, my best friend Zack stepped in. He crashed on my couch for months to make sure I was safe and fed. He did it out of love. But no one should have to rely on a friend to survive. We need more than speeches. We need leaders who see disabled people as human beings. We need a Medicaid system that doesn't just help us survive but lets us thrive. So don't just celebrate the ADA. Don't just mark Medicaid's anniversary. Show us that our lives matter. Protect the programs that give us independence, dignity and joy. From where I sit, holding tight to the care that keeps me alive, this bill isn't beautiful. It's a threat to everything we've built – and everything we still hope to become. Steve Way, an actor and comedian, is a member of the Caring Across Generations' Creative Care Council.
