There goes that idea.

“Fulton commission refuses Grady $99M in funding”, the ACJ headline reads.

Fulton County Commissioners today refused Grady Memorial Hospital’s request for $99.2 million in 2008 —cash hospital officials said was desperately needed to keep the ailing hospital afloat.

Instead, the board agreed to $80 million, plus $5 million in reserve funding if Grady meets certain management goals.

The amount matches what the county paid Grady in 2006 before approving $20 million in emergency funding last year.

Grady officials warned that any cut could have dire consequences to a public hospital already facing huge debt, problems with cash flow and challenges with patient care. Officials said patient care could suffer, nurses not be hired and vendor payments delayed.

“There is no plan B,” said Dr. Christopher Edwards, a Grady board member. “There is no more cutting we can do. We are at bare bones here. At the end of the day, if Fulton County decides to withhold, we are done.”

The decision came after more than two hours of dramatic debate as commissioners debated Grady’s financial condition and its patient care.

It still seems dumb to me that Grady’s strategy amounts to an all or nothing push for a deal that other people have to pony up for.


  1. M.P.E. says:

    You can’t look at it as all or nothing. A better way of viewing it is that the situation at Grady has no flexibility. There is a tipping point at which any funding cut (and let’s be clear that recieving the same funding two years in a row is a funding cut) will have a terminal affect on all services.

  2. juliobarrios says:

    Just out of curiosity how is receiving the same level of funding a “funding cut” versus “receiving the same level of funding”?

    I understand how their expenses may have gone up, but don’t understand how it changes the definitions on the revenue side.

  3. Tea Party says:

    jb: According to its’ CEO there is no waste at Grady, no way to cut expenses, and costs have risen in two years. So, semantically you may have a point, but the net effect is as if there were less funds provided.

Comments are closed.