Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

See What $$$ Does to People? With Poll

By

It makes them stupid

Alan D. Solomont – the nursing school grad who made millions by building nursing homes, stuffing them with patients receiving federal and state subsidies of one kind or another (hence the political fundraising) staffing them with minimum wage  earning care-givers, and then selling them for tens of millions –  wants a hack job.

Not just any hack job, but one that fits his expertise and worldly experiences. University President wouldn’t be bad, according to Alan.

This savvy sophisticate was a ‘major’ fund-raiser for Deval. So he should get something big. 

But wait. He was Tom Reilly’s main money man. On board with Tom early on.

Oh, I see. He wrote a few checks and made a few calls for Deval after the primary. Bye Tom. Nice knowing you. Hey ten minutes of attention from a superstar is worth everything and more.

So thinks Alan.

And to prove what a smart dudecicle he is he lets his desires be known to the Globe. Quotes and all.

Deval, you must appoint Alan to a position equivalent with his talent.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

      • Solomont’s given me the creeps for a long long time… which leads me to say: fundamental health system reforms absolutely must include, as a top priority, long term care.  If you only knew the details about the conditions in so many of these facilities… Quality of care for residents, working conditions for staff (e.g staffing levels and wages etc), and an overhaul of the funding mechanisms deserve urgent attention.  Of course these 3 components are inherently inter-related, in the same way that the more macro-scale health system challenges we face consist of the inter-related and inter-dependent components of access (the uninsured and underinsured–that’s most of us!), cost, and quality.

        <

        p>
        Maybe it’s from being a nurse, but I’ve come to think of these system elements and the need to approach health reform, right from the get-go, using the metaphor of treating a sick human being–you’ve got to act accordingly knowing how the heart, lungs and brain are inter-related and inter-dependent–or you’re very likely to make things worse.  (exhibit A, the doomed nature of the MA heatlh reform law because it does not sensibly address cost and funding issues, nor quality very much for that matter)

        <

        p>
        That’s why we really really need BMG readers and your friends and family to use these suggestions by BMG’ers john and me to help enact the health care amendment.  There is no better a tool for us, the public, to have a say and to have some power in setting clear standards and accountability as the health reform process moves forward.  Please act now.

  2. This Transition has been relatively silent both on people it’s considering for cabinet posts and on people who have been campaigning for posts.  Very few public leaks, which I think is good.  This is, I believe, the first article to explicitly call out someone who wants a particular job.

    <

    p>
    Guaranteed Solomont gets neither a cabinet post nor the head of UML.  I have to believe Deval’s peeps ain’t that dumb because were he to get either post, that would be the story as opposed to the story being “highly qualified person appointed as….”

    <

    p>
    Plus, Solomont can do more good for Dems by continuing to raise $$.  I know it’s not a clean system, but frankly we’d be eff’d without people like him out there raising dough.  Stick to what you’re good at, Alan, because you’ve been invaluable there and most people appreciate it.

    • Not to discuss the merits of having an article in the Globe, but as Hoss1 says, Alan has raised a heck of a lot of money for Democratic causes around the country, serving as Treasurer of the Party at a time when not a lot of people were stepping forward to volunteer.  He has also supported a lot of grassroots organizations in the areas of community organizing and hunger relief, among others.  At a time when philanthropy in considered to be donating a major wing of a prosperous university or cultural institution, he has walked the walk in terms of supporting small, but important social change organizations. (I should know, I get solicitations that he’s signed pretty regularly for them …).

      <

      p>
      And ok, so he didn’t support the “right” candidate in the primary, but I didn’t see anyone rejecting his help and that’s a good thing too.  We needed everyone’s support after the primary, regardless of the final result.

      <

      p>
      So, Alan, if you want to do public service in state govt, fine w/me, but get a better press handler — (resume not attached) — :).

      • How many Dem spinmeisters do you think contacted him today pitching their services? 

        <

        p>
        Agreed on all fronts, Howard.  We do need smart, accomplished people to serve in this new administration, and, based on how he ran his campaign, I’m confident Deval will put together an excellent team.

        <

        p>
        And I should clarify my earlier post:  this leak did not appear to come from the Patrick transition committee (although someone associated with the transition could have been the source), and Solomont’s statements clearly evidenced that he did not deny any of the claims contained in the article.  The transition has been almost “first-term-Bush-ian” in its message discipline, which is impressive.  No leaks in that hull…yet.

        <

        p>
        It’s all very amusing to me…

        • Thanks, it’s been many, many years since we’ve had a real chance for Democrats to serve in government that have not served before, and if Alan is honest enough to say he’d like to serve, good for him.

  4. I dunno, peter, maybe frank phillips and/or others at the Glob had loved ones in one of Solomont’s nursing homes and had “concerns” with the care that was given…

    <

    p>
    If you all only knew some of the data on the atrocious quality of care in many/most nursing homes, despite most workers trying really hard to take care of these folks. Horrible pressure wounds from not being turned frequently enough, large numbers of preventable falls resulting in serious injury, death from not being given enough fluids and/or food, and on and on.  Nurse researcher Charlene Harrington at UCSF is one of my heroes for conducting reams of research in this area and using it to advocate for policy reforms.  These efforts came up against tough opposition by Alan Solomont and others in “the industry”.  I’m getting queasy thinking about it.

    <

    p>

    The Nation | March 29, 1999 issue

    The Shame of our Nursing Homes
    by Eric Bates

    …For its part, the industry knows how to use its political and financial clout to block any meaningful reform. In 1978, on a trip to Arkansas to testify about nursing-home abuses, Holder found herself being driven to the airport by an ambitious attorney general named Bill Clinton. “I remember him saying he would never take any money from corporations that ran nursing homes,” she recalls. “I was quite impressed with this man, of course, that he would say that.” In 1996 Clinton raised $1.1 million from nursing-home owners, including several who attended breakfasts at the White House. The following year, at the President’s recommendation, Democrats named Alan Solomont, a Massachusetts nursing-home magnate who lobbied for weaker federal enforcement, the party’s new finance chairman…

    … Porter has a simple explanation for why care at Beverly and other nursing homes remains substandard. “Greed,” he says. “They don’t want to pay these nurse’s aides more because it would be money out of their profits. It’s as simple as that.” He also has a simple idea of how to improve care: Return nursing homes to public control. Given the history of abuses at county homes and the current political climate, it’s not a proposal that’s likely to gain much ground. But it does suggest the depth of frustration with a privatized system that profits from pain–and the importance of remembering who ultimately pays the price.

    “Perhaps nursing homes should be taken over by the state, county or city,” Porter says. “Each one of them could be run for less by the government, because there wouldn’t be an owner sitting there siphoning off hundreds of thousands of dollars. Imagine what kind of care we could provide with all those profits.

    <

    p>
    and this

    <

    p>

    TIME Magazine

    The Good Provider
    By Michael Weisskopf/Washington

    Alan Solomont, the new Democratic fund-raising chief, worked hard for his party. And his industry.

    (TIME, February 10, 1997) — By the standards of last year’s high-rolling presidential race, Donna Shalala’s appearance at a Democratic dinner for business executives seemed like just another effort to lend star quality to one of Bill Clinton’s ambitious fund-raising ventures. But to Alan Solomont, a Massachusetts nursing-home mogul who was host to the June 3 event in Washington, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shone brightest of all. A few weeks before the dinner, Solomont had visited Shalala with a team of lobbyists to press for less stringent enforcement of nursing-home regulations. Solomont, a leading Democratic fund raiser and an occasional jogging partner of Clinton’s, kept on lobbying throughout the campaign to win major concessions for his industry over the objections of consumer advocates. He got much of what he wanted.

    Ever since questions were raised about the legality and propriety of Clinton’s fund-raising practices, another big question has hung in the air. What, besides overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom, did the large donors get for their money? Last week, speaking at the first news conference of his second term, Clinton asserted, “I never made a decision for anybody because they were contributors of mine.” But the story of Solomont–his giving, his lobbying and his rise to become the Democratic Party’s new finance chairman–suggests that at least one Democrat’s generosity might have yielded a policy payoff. It also suggests to critics that people like Solomont might not be the best suited to carry out Clinton’s solemn promises to, as he said last week, “clean up the system.”

    Solomont gave the party $160,000 and helped raise $1.1 million more from nursing-home owners. But his most remarkable–and dubious–accomplishment was successfully lobbying the President’s appointees for regulatory changes while chairing his party’s Business Council of $10,000-a-year donors. This is the same council that handed the Democratic National Committee $1 million a week after Clinton heralded its “reform” era with such new leaders as Solomont…

    <

    p>
    and this

    <

    p>

    September 2001, Vol 91, No. 9 | American Journal of Public Health 1452-1455

    RESEARCH
    Does Investor Ownership of Nursing Homes Compromise the Quality of Care?

    Charlene Harrington, PhD, RN, Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, Joseph Mullan, PhD, Helen Carrillo, MS and David U. Himmelstein, MD

    Charlene Harrington, Joseph Mullan, and Helen Carrillo are with the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California at San Francisco School of Nursing. Steffie Woolhandler and David U. Himmelstein are with the Center for National Health Program Studies, The Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass.

    Objectives. Two thirds of nursing homes are investor owned. This study examined whether investor ownership affects quality.

    Methods. We analyzed 1998 data from state inspections of 13 693 nursing facilities. We used a multivariate model and controlled for case mix, facility characteristics, and location.

    Results. Investor-owned facilities averaged 5.89 deficiencies per home, 46.5% higher than nonprofit facilities and 43.0% higher than public facilities. In multivariate analysis, investor ownership predicted 0.679 additional deficiencies per home; chain ownership predicted an additional 0.633 deficiencies. Nurse staffing was lower at investor-owned nursing homes.

    Conclusions. Investor-owned nursing homes provide worse care and less nursing care than do not-for-profit or public homes.

    • No specifics in any of these articles about what he actually lobbied for or against.  (One could argue that state regulation is more direct and more appropriate — imagine an Eliot Spitzer type regulating bad homes).

      <

      p>
      No specifics pertaining to his nursing homes.  My only knowledge of them comes from my late grandmother who had a short stay in a Brookline facility owned by his company and found it preferable to other facilities she experienced (some of which were indeed, scary, IMO).

      <

      p>
      I exit with this excerpt from Health Care for All’s web site:

      <

      p>
      For the People, Against the Tide
      2006 Sponsors

      <

      p>
      On May 5th, nearly 600 guests joined Health Care For All at the Westin Copley Place Boston, for our annual leadership award celebration: For the People, Against the Tide. Elaine Ullian, Maureen Ferris, Zoila Torres Feldman and the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization were all honored for the impact they have made in health care. To date, Health Care For All has raised approximately $400,000 in gifts and pledges from the event.

      <

      p>  Visionary $25000

      <

      p>
      Alan and Susan Solomont 

      • if you will re-read my comment I referred to research conducted by Charlene Harrington and then the 3rd item I linked to in the blockquotes was for ONE OF THE MANY research articles authored by Nurse Dr Harrington.  the other media articles are relevent but not as research. you could google charlene harrington or just the topic if you’d like to see more research; it’s out there.

        <

        p>
        giving money away can be a way to attempt to soothe one’s conscience I suppose.  and don’t get me started on the group called Health Care For All–they largely sold out on pursuing fundamental health system reforms a long time ago.  they’re into tinkering.  yes, some of it has value but it also serves to obstruct needed reforms.  plus that organization is known to have repeatedly and intentionally harmed more far-reaching systems reform efforts, cutting back-group deals and acting quite unethically according to many community-based health care activists.  Instead of being called Health Care For All, many folks think a more fitting name would be Health Care For Some For A While.  And Solomont gave them 25k this year.  how nice.

        • Everyone’s a sellout — Deval’s a tool of “Killer Coke” etc, Health Care for All is a sellout,etc.

          <

          p>
          Sorry, I’m tired of seeing people’s reputations being ground into dirt, this blog is generally better than that.

        • Ann, you know I like you and your posts, but I can’t let your trashing of Health Care for All go unchallenged. I know John McDonough; I’ve been at GBIO meetings where he has spoken about health care issues; and I know how much effort HCFA and GBIO put into getting even this limited, flawed health care bill into effect. And guess what? With all the law’s flaws, there are now many thousands of people who have health insurance and dental coverage because of the organizing work of the MassACT coalition.

          <

          p>
          The impression that you leave of HCFA being a bunch of corporate turncoats is totally, completely false. I don’t know if that view holds currency among the folks you hang out with, but if so, you all should drop it like a rock. At the very least you owe it to us to be specific about your charges.

          <

          p>
          John justifiably feels that instead of betting the farm on a strategy that has no chance in the real world of politics, that he’d like to bring as many people into the lifeboat as will fit before they drown — while trying to get a bigger lifeboat. It’s an honest-to-God ethical dilemma, Ann, and your accusations don’t seem to acknowledge that people of good faith might come to a different tactical conclusion than you.

          <

          p>
          I think the divisions and mistrust among health care activists are grievously unfortunate. We are divided and conquered.

          • but it is true.  I and others “keep quiet” about what we know to be true in this arena most of the time, and that feels dishonest.  It is a terrible dilemma.  but is keeping quiet about it the solution?  I don’t have any interest in “trashing” anyone or any group.  i do not say negative things  for vicarious reasons.  i try very very hard to say what i know to be true and relevent to a discussion.

            <

            p>

            *At the very least* you owe it to us to be specific about your charges.

            <

            p>
            to respond: I posted this link a long time ago here on BMG when someone asked me on BMG what the specifics were that I had made reference to as I did in this thread.  so I’ll post it again and be willing to talk directly with anyone who would like more details.  I can also refer you to other individuals who have been directly involved in these situations over the years, but who feel uncomfortable speaking out about it.

            <

            p>
            I feel extremely uncomfortable speaking about it too.  but, after giving it a lot of serious thought, it feels like I have a paramount obligation to be truthful about something this important even if it is very uncomfortable and difficult. and even if it makes people mad.  i don’t go around looking to get folks mad at me, ask anyone who knows me.

            <

            p>

            Sorry, I’m tired of seeing people’s reputations being ground into dirt, this blog is generally better than that” from howardjp
            and “I think the divisions and mistrust among health care activists are grievously unfortunate. We are divided and conquered” from charley.

            <

            p>
            I have no desire or “mission” to grind anyone’s reputation but I do want to share information that is germain to a serious discussion.  and I agree that there is a very fractured and divided environment in the health reform arena in this state, and in many other states too–I participate in a nmber of regional and national forums and coalitions on this issue.  remeber, when the amount of money is involved that’s involved in the HC issue, things can get unpretty.

            <

            p>
            Manyof us advocates in this state have tried to articulate the need to support each other’s work if it will help to meet unmet needs in the short term, and also to work for the more far-reaching fundamental reforms that must be undertaken as well. and i consistently articualte the need to not obstruct each other’s work, even if one group decides not to be a part of it.  well, some very important work has been willfully obstructed and that obligates me to speak about it.  in part to reduce the chances that it will continue to happen.  I’ve known j mcd for years; he was my state rep, i’ve been at many forums with him, and was on a panel with him last winter talking about state health reform. for goodness sake, i was in a nurse activist group in the early ’90’s that met monthy at HCFA for a few years, and I’m still a member of HCFA,

            <

            p>
            we do see things differently on some points and we agree on others.  that could be an ok thing, even a good thing, but how those differences are acted upon do matter. and I cannot deny facts about certain egregious actions, especially when people’s lives are in the balance.  please remember, that’s what’s at stake in this health reform saga.

            • so I want to be thorough.  here are past comments on BMG that provide more specifics:
              1)
              Slightly off-topic question
              Does “Healtcare for All” support the [Health Care] Amendment?  If so, they’re sure quite.  If not, why not?

              <

              p>
              by: gary @ Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 13:45:49 PM EST

              <

              p>
              —-
              2)
              hhhmmmmmmmm
              could it be that mr. john mcdonough has an little agreement with the leadership to “back off”?

              <

              p>
              hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm

              <

              p>
              does this seem somewhat reminiscent of HCFA slipping out right before the vote on 58, and quietly recommending to the members of GBIO who had worked so tirelessly for real reform, that they too should pack it up and go home?

              <

              p>
              hhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm
              by: fairdeal @ Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 14:04:13 PM EST

              <

              p>
              —-
              3) 
              HCFA? GIBO? 58?
              Could you kindly clarify for those of us not up on the lingo?
              by: JillK. @ Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 16:40:22 PM EST

              <

              p>
              —-
              4) 
              To answer both gary’s and jill’s important questions
              about Health Care For All MA (HCFA);
              Greater Boston Interfaith Organization (GBIO);
              and the new MA health reform law (Chapter 58).

              <

              p>
              Here goes and I hope it/this link makes things clearer for you.  although beware, it might also begin to reveal just how muddy the waters are that we are treading in.

              <

              p>
              In addition to the info in the link above, I’ll add for clarification this add’l background: HCFA DID endorse the HC amendment, after all the signatures were collected, as i recall their timing.  then 3 days before the May 11, 2006 ConCon (which was a few weeks after HCFA got much of what they had wanted in incremental reforms included in the Chapter 58 law) HCFA submitted a letter UNENDORSING the hc amendment, stating “unreconcilable differences” or something to that vague effect.

              <

              p>
              It’s extremely difficult to discuss these things, as they do cause a simultaneous very heavy heart along with a rapid sharp increase in blood pressure…

              <

              p>
              as goes for most others here, i value first and foremost focusing on constructive actions. i respect and value everyone’s questions and do feel obliged to respond honestly and thoroughly to sincere inquiries.
              by: AnnEM @ Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 20:33:44 PM EST

Archives