First let us compliment the Lancaster Newspapers for publishing a series of three informative articles concerning the compensation of Lancaster General Health’s executives. It takes journalistic courage to take on the establishment in control of Lancaster largest employer and the custodian of our lives.
The third in the series entitled “LGH compensation: Plenty, but not out of line”, reports the following:
“Of the top 20 highest-compensated executives among the six comparable hospitals, five were from LGH — Beeman, Executive Vice Presidents Jan Bergen and Marion A. McGowan, Senior Vice President Lee M. Duke MD, and then-CFO F. Joseph Byorick.” …
“At Ephrata (see related story, Page A6), just two executives took home more than $250,000 in total compensation in 2010.
But at Geisinger — with 2010-11 total revenues of $2.3 billion, more than double that of LGH — a whopping 43 executives earned that much, including three who got more than $1 million (and one more at $993,397; 18 got more than $500,000).”
Yes, President’s Tom Beeman’s compensation may be in line with other CEOs, but two other executives are paid at a comparable level, which is difficult to rationalize. Do we need to pay two others to do Beeman’s job?
But the issue of what constitutes a just level of compensation for the top executives of a Public Charity is but a symptom of what is wrong at LGH.
How much confidence can the public place in a board of directors of a Public Charity which is self perpetuating, is all white, does not represent the diverse interests of the community, and conducts all of its business in total secrecy?
The County Commissioners, municipal governments, and even authorities conduct their business in public.
Moreover, they are subject either to election or, in the case of the Convention Center Authority, appointment to specific terms are made by an elected body.
But not Lancaster General, the crown jewel of Lancaster. Why aren’t there provisions for the County Commissioners, the City, and the School District of Lancaster to appoint some of the directors? Why doesn’t LGH adopt a policy of including representatives from the African-American and Latino communities as well a clergy on their board of directors?
It’s our hospital, our public charity, our money, yet it is run by a clique contemptuous of public input and treats the institution as its private fiefdom.
Yes, we appreciate the excellent level of treatment at LGH. But we have other expenses in life and cannot afford to pay huge premium directly or in insurance costs to fund sweetheart compensations and acquisitions of medical practices and other efforts a gain a strangle hold on local medical care.
We invite readers to visit the Lancaster General Hospital Series for articles delving with specific abuses.
Non profit? Ha Ha Ha. If this were a “for profit” institution at least the stockholders would have a say and perhaps run a better institution. Plus LGH would pay TAXES!!