Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Guest column by Martha Jones Sichko

This column honors Naeve Hospital’s health care professionals who understood that the hospital stood as a beacon of compassionate care, meeting patient needs. Mayo Clinic tore down Naeve, and sadly, this $18 billion nonprofit continues to gut vital medical services in Freeborn County. Here’s more to the story.

Two months have passed since Mayo responded to the Commissioner’s questions about Mayo Clinic Health System in Albert Lea, but the commissioners have yet to address them or request an assessment from its public health director.

This neglect is troubling, as the questions encompass vital health services affecting all citizens. Notably, the director also dismissed the review of Mayo’s responses.

The director’s role is to protect citizens’ health, address gaps, and develop a quality improvement plan per statutory obligation. Not knowing the most accurate, available services puts the public at risk.

In reviewing Mayo’s responses with local health advocates, the responses were full of inaccuracies, vague reassurances and deliberate omissions. Mayo offered deflections and confusion instead of evidence-based answers.

This pattern of manipulation isn’t new. In June 2017, Mayo announced plans to cut medical services and shutter the hospital, spreading untruths about finances, patient base and rural health care that didn’t apply to Freeborn County.

These claims were disproved by credible research, including:

– The Post Bulletin investigation indicated that Albert Lea Hospital had positive financial margins, while MCHS SE faced significant losses after the merger.

– The Quorum research showed a patient base of 65,000 and over 300 births — significantly above average — proving a full-service hospital was sustainable. Mayo’s claim of “one birth a day” was deceptive.

– GAO’s 2017 Rural Healthcare Report showed most closures were in for-profit hospitals in the South with fewer than 50 beds. Albert Lea had 70 beds.

Mayo’s “optimization” failed patients. Unfortunately, they continue with falsehoods, avoiding public meetings and patient concerns. The administrators know the damaging outcomes of their decisions, but arrogance blocks course correction.

The commissioners should have prioritized supporting new providers to reduce health care costs, as patients pay 30% more for care, yet the board appears unconcerned with rising costs.

Mayo’s evasiveness should disturb the commissioners, and the director’s statement, “We can’t do anything about it,” summarizes the leadership. The commissioners should ask where the plan is after a year of meetings and knowing the priorities of access, transportation and mental health.

Inaction isn’t a strategy, especially when the public health department’s 2024 budget was $3,901,762. In 2025, the budget is $4,084,549, an increase of $182,787, which applies mainly to salaries.

The director’s disregard to analyze Mayo’s responses caused citizens to review them on behalf of the public. A thorough analysis of Mayo’s responses reveals a continuation of cutting essential services and misinformation. Key findings include:

1. Transparency and Accountability: The Commissioners asked Mayo 25 questions, but an alarming 14 went unanswered, and many of the 11 responses were misleading or incomplete, particularly on employee numbers, service cuts, wait times, and Naeve Foundation. Evading 56% of questions is concealment.

2. Services moving to Austin: Albert Lea won’t be the premier outpatient surgery hub, as promised. Commissioners should be alerted that an inquiry shows Mayo is building more surgery and procedure rooms in Austin and won’t commit to maintaining services here.

3. Transportation: Shifting more procedures to Austin will worsen transportation challenges, especially for vulnerable populations. The Commissioners are aware of transportation and ambulance issues but haven’t acted.

4. Untimely care: Mayo reported an average 6-hour, 15-minute wait from ER to in-patient. While the ER remodel may improve care, it doesn’t address in-patient bed shortages, worsening wait times, and increasing costs for Medicare patients in observation beds.

5. Shortages: The public needs to understand why other regional hospitals can recruit and retain physicians.

6. Workforce inequity: Mayo’s refusal to disclose employee numbers in Albert Lea amidst Austin’s expansion casts doubt on its claims of staffing equity, harming the county’s economic vitality.

7. Costs: Mayo states that only insurance companies set the 30% higher costs — false. Hospitals actively negotiate prices with insurers as an industry standard.

8. Ambiguity: While Mayo answers mental health questions, they omit future plans.

The commissioners should follow up on unanswered questions and ensure the public health director meets community needs — or appoint a new one. The Public Health Department should forge meaningful partnerships and deliver real solutions.

The power to act is with the commissioners because they now have information. If they let the problem fester, they will bear the consequences. The public will not forget. It’s time to lead with vision.

If the commissioners don’t want to address health care, form a County Health Board with those who will — like the Naeve nurses and physicians. The community deserves leaders committed to their well-being.

Martha J. Sichko is an advocate for seniors, fighting for affordable, accessible health care.