Here are both articles form The Orlando Sentinel. about the Villages Moffitt Center"
 

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:First article: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/....column?page=2


Second article: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...1664811.column

I have a theory, if I was the head of Moffitt and I organized the four non profit corporations and I wanted to insure that one of the corporations did not become more popular than the rest and receive more donations that the rest and become profitable, I would create a fictitious name “MOFFITT CANCER CENTER”. Because the names of the four corporations are too long to fit on a donation check, I would tell contributors to make the check out to “MOFFITT CANCER CENTER”. In doing so checks could be deposited in anyone of the four non profits corporation accounts and prevent any non profit from becoming profitable.

I do believe that if I am correct it would be playing by the rules.

hello villagers concerned about moffitt,

i just popped on here to answer russ boston's question. finally! someone asked it! thanks, russ. though he phrased it differently, he basically wants to know why i never write anything nice about the villages.

first, there is a distinction here that few people seem to make, and i am not sure why they do not see the difference. realize i have never, ever written anything critical of the lifestyle or what is offered to residents at the villages.

in many columns, i have stated that it's a great place to live for folks who want a social experience and who are big golf fans. where better? if you find some place, let me know. i do not write columns about what the villages offers or columns comparing the offerings of local retirement communities. these issues simply aren't on my radar as a journalist. but i think it's great if you're having fun. more power to you.

that said, i often write articles that are critical or that question the actions of the developer. for some reason, folks in the villages identify with the developer. they seem to think that a criticism of the developer is a criticism of them or their lifestyle.

that's what i don't get and maybe someone can explain it. the way i see it, you folks are customers -- you bought a house and a lifestyle. it was an arm's length transaction in a business deal. after you buy a buick, do you feel some sort of identification with the phillips dealership? (because i write critically about the developer, i am somehow seen as hating the people who live there or hating the lifestyle or being "jealous". i am with nitakk on this one -- just because you have questions about moffitt and the way it's being sold to you doesn't mean you hate cancer survivors, does it?)

ok, moving on...why, you might ask, don't you also write about the developer of the planation? or the stonecrest? or, one of the other retirement communities?

the answer is simple: the developer of the villages has created GOVERNMENTS, legitimate governments under florida law. and he controls the big governments that handle all your "tax" money. none of the other retirement communities operate in the same way. of course, villages residents don't pay actual property taxes to the developer. in the villages, we call it an "amenity fee." the fee pays for many of the same things that citizens outside the villages have given to cities and counties to take care of. your fees are set and administrated by the developer-controlled governments.

that's why, in my book, your developer gets the same scrutiny i give to any other government in the area. i spend some considerable time writing about how public money is spent in lake county. for example, i'll be writing on sunday about more than $6 million that i believe the city of leesburg just flat wasted buying slums instead of making the owners clean them up. if you were to look back in a catalogue of my clips over the last 30 years, you would not find "nice" articles about government.

why is that? the reason is that the press in america is not in charge of advertising for any government. i'm not the cheerleading section for the city of leesburg, just as i'm not the publicity chairman for the villages governments. journalists are the watchdogs of government -- hence the nickname, 'the fourth estate.' i look at how these entities are using your money, and as a columnist, i write what i think about them.

you may argue that the villages is unique. indeed, it is unique in more ways than simply governmental structure. does that mean that no one should be allowed to think critically about how money for public purposes is spent? i hope not.

it is easy to deflect focus by saying, 'oh, she hates the villages,' or, 'oh, he hates moffitt,' or, 'oh, dr. anderson is just mad because he's losing patients' or 'oh, it's political,' or any number of other smokescreens. that's just a way of trying to keep people from taking a serious look into an issue for themselves and making a decision. in my opinion, that's precisely what your developer wants you to do -- recognize the well-respected moffitt brand and give your cash thoughtlessly.

my purpose in writing the last two columns (and there is another coming on friday that i didn't anticipate when i wrote the first two) is to lay out some facts that seem to be lacking. for example, lots of people think that moffitt is building a full service cancer center, just like in tampa only smaller. the vice president of moffitt stated to me that that assumption is completely incorrect. in fact, he said, there will be only one doctor who works for moffitt, and tht person will be at the villages only part-time. there are NO docs who are in diagnostics. so, the idea that you can go there to be diagnosed and have a treatment plan developed by docs who work for moffitt is in error. and where did that idea come from? i submit to you that it's from the hype created by the daily sun and the developer.

once i lay out the facts, the purpose of a column is commentary -- in other words, i give my opinion. the idea is to get folks talking and thoughtfully considering the developer's request instead of simply rushing to do what's asked. most of us have limited amounts to contribute to charity, and we've worked hard for our cash. i think we all want to be sure that what we give is being spent wisely.

russ, i hope that gives you an idea of what i do for a living and how. i'm happy to answer other questions if i can. i am not on totv usually, but i try to log in when i have written something that affects folks here. if you have something pressing and i haven't been on totv, please email me at LRitchie@orlandosentinel.com

and as always, thank you for taking the time to read the column. this is thursday afternoon, and i believe column no. 3 will be posted on the sentinel's site at www.lakesentinel.com by later this evening.

-- lauren

Lauren, thanks for your research on what is going on with this whole Moffitt fiasco. While some people here are happy with a golf club in one hand and a beer in the other, I'd like to believe there are more reasonable, educated residents who want to know the facts. Like I said in my previous post, that $1 million could have done a lot of good for a lot of people in this area instead of funding something that didn't need funding in the first place.

Why do the posts of this individual seem to be attacks on the intelligence of those who think otherwise? Lets talk about facts, not inuendo and allow people to develop their own opinions and act accordingly.

Does this mean if I play golf and drink beer that I am uneducated??

Only if you try and play golf one handed while holding the beer.

Thanks for checking in Laureen.

I can understand what you are saying about what some residents think. But I only deal with facts. The facts you stated about what CFHA and Moffitt are doing is known to me (I think). But I do believe that you can get coordinated care through this facility. Yes they will need to discuss with others but the Moffitt affliliation should allow for complete coordinated care (albeit maybe not just at the TV location). No? If I'm wrong then please correct me.

The biggest issue I've had is how people think CFHA or Moffitt is different than any not for profit 'hospital'. They all NEED donations. Hospitals have entire wings donated by benefactors. I guess this difference here is the distrust by some that think Morse et. al. will unduly benefit from the donations.

Now boys, calm down. I also play golf (and drink wine - love happy hour) but I meant that for some people, that's enough and they don't want to know what's happening here in our community. As long as it doesn't affect their insulated world, who cares? While I am flattered at all the attention, it would be better served by discussing the lengthy post by Ms. Ritchie and her two articles in the Sentinel. That is the real issue here and it deserves better attention that this.

Lauren, many of us do appreciate the facts you bring to light in your columns, and many of us do NOT take it personally, although there will always be those that do, for reasons I can't understand either. Your column is doing our community a favor ~ thank you!

More info is good. I'm not really sure this article had any new info though. All of it was already discussed here on TOTV. Maybe we're just ahead of the game:)

hey russ,
you certainly will be able to get what usually is called "coordinated care" at the moffitt center. but you can already get the same thing at two other centers in or near the villages -- one owned by dr. anderson and one by dr. hal jacobson. and both of those have "affiliations" with moffitt in place. (they're actual written agreements). also, all the docs who will be providing care at the center practice here already.

the problem is that villages residents, apparently because of the voluminous publicity, are presuming that moffitt is going to send its docs over here to diagnose and treat folks. that is not the case, and moffitt's VP is very clear on that. the doctors doing the diagnosing and planning of treatment modalities are all LOCAL docs, people with existing practices here right now.

the only thing that moffitt is providing a doctor for is to oversee the dispensing of radiation treatments -- the same treatment available in two of four centers close to the villages today. (two do full treatments; two do limited treatments, mostly in the field of urology cancers.)

both moffitt and central florida health alliance are, indeed, non profit. i am not sure why they would need donations. they get the same reimbursements from insurance and medicare as do for-profit hospitals and docs and cancer centers. it's an equal playing field for all of them.

as to whether morse will "unduly" profit...only in the sense that he can use the moffitt center as yet another tool to sell homes. realize that so far, he hasn't donated a dime, unless he has quietly done so without telling anyone. i'd be surprised if that's the case. yet he's asking you to reach into your wallet. i think that's wrong -- just my opinion.

also, he will make money on the deal from the long-term leaseback on the build-to-suit construction for the center. i don't begrudge him that. but i think it's wrong to have given people the impression that he's "donated" the property, which is precisely how his connection was described by his newspaper. he hasn't.

jane,
what an interesting question you raise about whether moffitt will be paying rent on the leesburg facility. that was one of the questions i would have asked lee huntley, had he been willing to be interviewed, which he wasn't.

-- lauren

hey iaudit,

folks weren't just "led to believe" that. they were flatly told that untruth by the developer's newspaper. that's what first attracted my attention to this issue.

--lauren

Is it possible to see an actual quote (source cited and verifiable) from anywhere on these 'untruths'? I see a lot of people saying it as absolute fact but have yet to see it in writing. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but since I'm up in the frozen north right now I need some links. Thanks.

Unfortunately, Russ, unlike real newspapers, the Daily Sun does not even post most of the their newspaper articles online or create an archive of previous articles for one to search. Therefore, unless one keeps a physical copy of their old newspapers, there is no way to go back and look at what was originally printed in the Daily Sun.

The main headline in the Daily Sun earlier in the week was that the donations for the hospital equipment had gone over $1 million dollars. If you look at the online edition with articles for this week, there is no mention of this milestone that warranted front page headlines.

Russ, as iaudit stated, it's often hard to provide links to stories from The Daily Sun. The are very selective on which articles can be viewed online.

However, here is a link to what I believe was the first announcement of Moffitt coming to The Villages. The article can be read in its entirety here: http://www.thevillagesdailysun.com/n...cc4c03286.html

Hope I'm not breaking your rules, Tony, but I'd also like to cut and paste from that article into my post.

The developer is financing and building the second tower addition to the Sharon Morse Building next to the hospital. It will house the complete Moffitt Cancer Center, which is planned to be operative by early next year.

This means that most costs for the Moffitt center will be covered, with the exception of approximately $2 million of specialty cancer equipment, which will require some charitable contributions during the year of construction.

Maybe this is why so many people are not happy about this project and how it has evolved. It started out indicating approximately $2 million of equipment which will require some charitable contributions to over $4 million which they want to be entirely funded by charitable contributions. It was originally over $6 million but then they "joined forces" with Lake Medical Imaging, who already has a piece of equipment required, in their offices are the other end of the Sharon Morse building.

Hope this helps you understand why some of us feel as we do.

Yup, both statements are true, only neither disclose the full set of facts.
The Developer is doing the building, but neglected to say he's keeping it and renting it out.
Of course substantially all costs will be covered,--- from patient's fees, including rent expense. That's how business are run.
Ignorance is bliss, as the Developer so proves. And everyone runs out to jump on the bandwagon!
Also, keep in mind that not-for-profit organizations can AND usually DO make profits, they just are mandated to use "some" of those "profits" for charitable purposes. And, "profits" come after whatever salaries, and bonuses, and lavish fringes the "managers" of the organization pay themselves. The real problem of many not-for-profits is maintaining the balance between making and retaining large profits and disbursing enough charitable funds and activities to maintain their tax exempt status. If run "right", a not-for-profit is a license to steal.
There are many good organizations, but a lot of bad ones are really run for the benefit of the organizers, so check out an organization's financials and public reports before making significant donations.

I think ALL not for profit organizations in the health field have well stocked charitable giving/recieving foundations. As I've said before, you can walk into almost any hospital or medical center here in Boston (and there are many!) and read the names on the wall of famous benefactors or see the whole buildings that are in their name. And all of these facilities have CEOs, doctors etc. who make millions but they still ask for donations.

It is not unusual for a medical center to ask for donations regardless of the intended use of the money that is raised. I think this is fact not a guess I my part. I still don't understand the problem. If you don't support the charity then don't contribute and don't attend any function that is contributing. Send your money directly to the other charity that you think is being slighted. And yes, don't be afraid to let others know of your concerns if it means that much to you. This is still America and you have that right. To me - It is that easy!

To even insinuate that Moffitt is not a legit organization is ludicrous. There are places that monitor such thngs - just check them out. They, and their affliate network, have been ranked by those that rank such things as one of the top comprehenisve cancer research and treatment centers in the country.

If I'm wrong about this then I'll issue each and every one of you a sincere apology. But I'm betting that I'll never have to do that.

Very well stated!!

Russ, I've never denied that Moffitt is a legitimate, good (actually, great) cancer treatment center and I don't think anyone has said otherwise, although I do remember one post insinuating Moffitt was not really not-for-profit. (Personally, I'm hard-pressed to be convinced that anything but a county hospital or Shriner's and St. Jude's are truly not-for-profits in the medical field.) Totally irrelevant.

Also, to me, there's a huge difference between the charity balls, contributions for wings made by the monied, etc. and pretty much forcing people to contribute whether they believe in the "charity" or not. Almost every event held at Savannah Center now seems to have a portion going to Moffitt. As I've stated, I won't attend an event where a portion of the proceeds go to TV's Moffitt Center, but I really resent not attending some of these events. I truly would have enjoyed some of them but I'll be danged if I'm going to give one nickel to something I feel is unnecessary, of little benefit to the majority and rammed down my throat as if it was the greatest gift ever given.

Third Sentinel Article
 

Love it, redwitch - couldn't agree with you more.:BigApplause:

So true Redwitch. :clap2: We are going to a wine tasting with a group and we are all complaining that part of the ticket goes to Moffitt. One in the group called the business and were told the business was forced into the whole deal. Nice way to strong arm a business which was told their rent would go up if they didn't cooperate. :ohdear:

While I will say that I do have issues with the fund raising for the Moffitt Center, at the same time I can not agree that it is unnecessary or of little benefit to the majority.
After having a loved one go through various treatments and finding out what is and is not covered under insurance I fully understand the need for "options" when it comes to cancer treatments and insurance. Not all treatment centers are accepted by every insurance company. As an example when my wife needed treatment for her cancer we were faced with the option of "in plan" centers that were 2 hours away and out of state or two others that would mean we had to fly to those cities. She choose the one that was one hour away and in state but "out of plan" which required a much higher out of pocket from us. I do not know if this will be an issue here but it certainly could be. I can not begin to count how many family and friends have been touched by my wife's fight with cancer and according to the American Cancer Society about 569,000 Americans were expected to die in 2010 from cancer. So I then wonder how many of those 569,000 families and families such as mine who are still fighting this disease would feel that a new cancer center would only benefit the majority and is thus unnecessary.
Some may just feel that Moffitt in TV is unnecessary and that is certainly their privilege but my guess is that if they ever need treatment things will probably be seen in a different light.

TRUE DAT..............

Does anyone know if the Chili Cookoff next Saturday is being strong-armed for a percentage also?

Larry - I agree that if this happened it would be awful. But "rent would go up"? Doesn't pass the sniff test. In fact I would think that would be illegal tactics and probably actionable if it took place. Do you mean the rent for the event or for their business location? If it was location and they have that on record then that is called racketeering.

Red - Yes it is unfortunate that people are not attending events based on the charity of choice. But I have attended many things that say "a portion of the proceeds...". Quite frankly if I want to attend the event I do. I don't let the fact that a portion of the proceeds go to a charity of not my choice affect me.

I think everyone needs to understand that they should only believe about half of what anyone says and less than a third of what they read. Use your own sniff test and ask for more detailed answers.

Larry, I think much of the criticism about the tactics is quite well deserved, but that accusation is just beyond the pale.

It's one thing to disapprove of the tactics, but quite another to believe anything that supports your position regardless of how outlandish and unsubstantiated. It sounds as if you are making an accusation of criminal conduct. Do you even have any evidence beyond someone said? Good grief!

russ, i agree it doesn't pass the sniff test, but then there is a lot of purported information posted here that is unsubstantiated, it's the nature of the beast, welcome to the internet....gn

spk, I'd totally agree with you that a Moffitt in TV would be totally necessary but for one fact -- Moffitt had already agreed to have one at Leesburg, which will actually be closer to those who live in the south end of TV than the one being built in TV. Sorry, I can see no need for two centers of the exact same kind being built that close together.

russ, I've been very vocal about how I feel about a Moffitt Center in TV. To then let my $$ knowingly go to Moffitt would be very hypocritical. So, I'll continue staying away from events that support something I don't.

You should spend your money as you see fit of course. That's what I've been saying all along - vote with your feet if you feel inclined.

Personally I don't care if the same business decides to have two locations near each other. I only assume that they've done their homework. Unfortunately (for those that need the facility) I'll bet they will both succeed.

Then it all comes down to choice and if I was in the situation of needing care and my doctor recommended Mofitt then I would go to the facility "on property" even though Leesburg may be closer to my house. And I suspect a number of people in TV would probably choose the same.

Having said all of that I do not believe this to be an issue of two facilities close together but an issue of how the funding is being handled. That I do not agree with.

Food for thought, “I would go to the facility "on property" even though Leesburg may be closer to my house. And I suspect a number of people in TV would probably choose the same.” I go along with that, so I wonder why with all the nice restaurants in TV why would TOTV go to Leesburg to have a get together. I could not figure that from the day it was announced if for no other reason than if you want to see you local business tomorrow you should support it today.

Probably because they are a (new?) advertising clent of TOTV.

According to the latest Sentinel article, there’s already an independent treatment center in Leesburg. So there will be a total of 4 treatment centers. Of course, by 2015, TV plans to have an additional 25,000 residents.

P.S. It’s not just TV residents that are being asked to donate funds. They are holding fund raising meetings with residents in the adjacent communities too.

Ok, that makes sense. I have to admit I do not continually review the ads. If they would mix in some personal ads from hot chicks I would read them more often.:)

And by looking at any of the county population growth projections for Lake and Sumter counties over the next five to ten years and further out it would present a pretty good business case for just about anyone in the medical field.

Naples restaurant in Leesburg is one of the sponsors that provides you with the privilege of using this forum for free. We have contacted every (every) restaurant in The Villages with a proposal to advertise on Talk of The Villages. Every one of them has declined. Naples restaurant, on the other hand, sees the value of promoting itself to Villages residents. (wonder why they go out of business?)

For those who publicly profess to not viewing not noticing or just plain ignoreing our advertisers, I would say that it's important to remember that its these ads that provide all of use with the privilege of having Talk of The Villages. Without them, no forum.

The developer is likely the landlord of most restaurants in The Villages. I would hate to think that they are being instructed to not support this forum.

JLK

Under the circumstances you have described I would totally support your actions. Thank you for taking time to respond and for providing that information.

Well said
 

It seems like there are better uses for our charitable contributions.

My biggest complaint about this whole controversy is the total lack of journalistic integrity on the part of Developer's Daily Sun toadies in reporting on this matter, but I guess we should be used to that by now. It is too bad that the Daily Sun is the only source of news for many Villagers.
We can be grateful to Lauren Ritchie and the Property Owners' Association for giving us the news that the Developer obviously doesn't want us to have.