Policies are not plans

Your article of Dec. 17, 2014, concerning the hospital’s overall correction plan appears to suggest two issues. One, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has set forth explicitly the policies to guide CHC’s activity for full compliance with its mandates, but CHC failed in that respect. Thus, CHC is now saying that it has to change course because it is hitting the wrong targets. Or, it could be that CHC has not figured what CMS’ policies are, and now it is trying to adjust what they are or define what they ought to be.

You see, policies are not plans. Rather, they are the basic framework for planning. The problem here is not with the policies because they are all laid out clearly in what CMM has been expressing all along, and this did not just crop up a few days ago. This looks more convincingly bloated in the plans and planning scheme that CHC pursued or ought to make good on. We ought to know precisely what are the plans crafted by CHC thus far addressing all the policies whether coming from the governor, the Legislature, CMS or by mere assessment of good value for patients seeking care at this public facility. Operational planning is key to the preparation for all administrative actions. We all must acknowledge that realism is a virtue in planning.

The question is more of what are the plans and how planning within CHC is producing results. This is not a policy question, and it should not have been part of the question. So, if the governor has set out a policy for CHC to pay attention and resolve all of CMS’ mandates, that is the policy. CHC from that point must now produce and craft the plans to assure to the governor that it is done.

There is no point in emphasizing the importance of public policies if they are not to have meaning for government action. And, in responsible government, we expect CEOs like Esther Muna to obtain for the good of CHC the desirable policies from the authoritative source, whether it be the Legislature, the governor, CMS, or its own CHC board of directors. The objective in terms of broad public policy is where the CEO must begin the planning work. If the policy is not yet approved, then there is an impasse and the CEO cannot undertake the plans to be crafted for that purpose, hence, until plans are reviewed and consented by governing authority, including the governor, it could not be a source for administrative actions. The policies are clearly stipulated, why is it that we question what they are? Is this the issue?

Francisco R. Agulto
Kannat Tabla, Saipan