St. Vincent closes in on new hospital deal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A deal in which St. Vincent Health would either buy or lease Bedford’s Dunn Memorial Hospital is in the final stages, according to the Times-Mail of Bedford. The hospital board held two hours of closed-door talks on May 26, and one board member predicted a decision within days.

Indianapolis-based St. Vincent, a part of St. Louis-based Ascension Health, has held exclusive talks with Dunn Memorial for nearly 18 months. St. Vincent has been trying to expand its presence statewide by offering its medical and financial resources to struggling hospitals in rural areas.

St. Vincent currently operates 17 hospitals around Indiana. A hospital spokesman said the Dunn board would be meeting again this week.

In January, St. Vincent won approval to lease the hospital in Salem for five years with an option to then buy it. St. Vincent offered in 2008 to lease Dunn for five years.

The hospital’s board rejected St. Vincent’s offer in favor of merger talks with Bedford’s other hospital, owned by Indianapolis-based Clarian Health. But the Dunn-Clarian talks broke down in late 2008, according to the newspaper.

Smaller hospitals want to join forces with larger peers for three key reasons: They need buying power to negotiate better reimbursement from insurance plans and lower prices from suppliers; they often need a larger system to provide enough patients for high-value specialists, such as heart and orthopedic surgeons or cancer specialists; and a larger financial base makes hospitals more credit-worthy, driving down their borrowing costs.

To read more about large Indiana hospital systems expanding statewide, go here.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!