Critics say the protections for services are inadequate and could be circumvented, and are concerned that no outside entity (as outlined in section 13.13) would have the ability to enforce provisions of the agreement. What is Mission’s view of the adequacy of the protections, and why is there no provision that a community group, state attorney general or other organization be able to enforce key parts of the agreement?

Critics say the protections for services are inadequate and could be circumvented, and are concerned that no outside entity (as outlined in section 13.13) would have the ability to enforce provisions of the agreement. What is Mission’s view of the adequacy of the protections, and why is there no provision that a community group, state attorney general or other organization be able to enforce key parts of the agreement?

Critics are common in most every situation, no matter whether reasonable or not.  It is human nature to compare any change to “perfect” rather than present reality.

With respect to enforcement, the first relevant body is the local advisory board – those living and representing the local community – which has the exclusive authority to make any changes to services.  Should an irreconcilable dispute arise there however unlikely, Mission Health would be the next line of defense so long as it remains in existence and has the wherewithal to pursue enforcement.  Ultimately, Mission Health will cease to exist; because many provisions in the agreement persist in perpetuity, Dogwood Health Trust has the ultimate enforcement role along with the assets to ensure its ability to do so.  As a perpetual organization, it will be the ongoing steward and protector of the HCA Healthcare agreement over the long run.