« When the power goes out | Main | VIP at Kahler on May Day »

02 May 2013



"....is simply more of the exclusive inner circle."

Sour grapes. Would their opinion be different if they would have been asked to be on the initial focus groups?

Patricia Allende De Jung

I see that John Kruesel and Keven Lund make reference in the closing of their above letter to Rochester being Home to the Mayo Clinic. Indeed, it is. Actually,
I would like everyone who lives in and around Rochester to ask himself what this town would be without the Mayo Clinic.

Like it or not, this town is primarily identified as the home of the world famous Mayo Clinic. It's not the Riveria or a tropical paradise. In a state of over ten thousand natural lakes, Rochester doesn't boast even one natural lake!
Rochester is here and has held strong economically, primarily because of the Mayo Clinic, which has drawn people from all over the world to its doors.
As a result, Rochester as a city has been one of a kind. But, the times, remember, they are a changin.'

All this strum and drang about the way Mayo has handled this confuses me. Why would anyone think that a business, albeit granted it is Our Mayo Clinic, we are talking about-- why would anyone think Mayo should have gotten all kinds of outside people involved in their research, brainstorming, and session planning before the organization itself was set and decided on what exactly it had to do to remain competitive. It makes no business sense for one thing.

As for the DMC legislation, Mayo is not getting the money. Plain and simple. Any state monies will be used to build and maintain better infrastructure- which is basically necessary to Mayo, yes, but also is something from which everyone living and working here will benefit from as well. It's not as if, over time, the roads and sewers and bridges etc won't need replacing anyway. This way, though, maintaining infrastructure comes with future jobs and investments in our community by Mayo.

What I keep hearing from those who are basically hesitant to support the DMC legislation, is a fear that Rochester will change too much and too quickly. This is the delemna of any and all progress. It either moves to fast or its doesnt move at all. Choices must be made to spur it on or to snuff it out. Moving forward and planning for the future involves risk and adaptation to change. The alternative is that we not only stop growing, but that we atrophy.

I guess what each of us should ask ourselves is: Do we want to resist change, and try to pereptuate and protect the status quo-- with the good possibility that in so doing, we might all end up dying in a small town, where, yes, there isnt a whole lot to do, but at least we Rochesterites can have the illusion that wer'e still the center of our limited parochial universe?
Or do we look forward and move into the future even though it means there will be change?

Make no mistake. This really is a time sensitive issue. Other major clinics have adopted the Mayo Model of Practice. That is what has brought people to Mayo: the way Mayo treats it patients, the Mayo model of care. Now, other major medical centers are adopting this approach to patient care. We are no longer unique in this. We are no longer the one place where people can find and experience this. We have new competition.

This is a big change that Mayo is facing. The thing is, in today's world, what used to be enough to move forward and remain competitive is no longer enough. This is reality here: Mayo must be able to attract those patients who can afford to pay for the best possible medical care.

Call it what you will, this is necessary not only to make it possible for so many in this community to receive the health care services locally that we have all become accustomed to, it is essential for Mayo's abilty to remain a leader in health care services in this country and across the globe. To ignore this practical fincial fact and act as if we can really afford not to do this and be part of this, is akin to sticking our heads in the sand, or cutting off our collective noses to spite our faces.

As comfortable as it might be to fool ourselves into thinking we can continue to keep everything the same as it has always been in Rochester, is a both a totally unrealistic and irresponsible mindset --detrimental not only to Mayo's future presence here in Rochester, but to the future viability of the city itself. The world around us quickly changes and we must all learn to adapt and change with it.

The way I see it, we are either actively engaged in creating our future or we sit back and hem and haw and finally in the end just let the future happen to us.
Mayo has come up with a bold initiative to address the realities of todays health care market. It promises a continued investment in this city and state as long as it can rely on the necessary infrastructure to be there as they grow.

I would like to know how anyone can suggest opposing the DMC is for our own good. Change is inevitable. It comes with being alive. It comes with growth and development. I feel that it would be tragically shortsighted if we allow our fear of change or our natural resistance to change to threaten our own survival and future well being.

I do think that Drs Will and Charlie, if alive today, would be forward thinking realists. However unpleased they might be about the evolving competitive nature of delivering health care in this country, I think they would certainly choose to deal with, rather than ignore, this tough reality, so that they could continue to do their good work in our rapidly changing world. After all, they started out by taking risks and daring to make bold decisions. We should all be so forward thinking, bold, and brave.
Posted by: Patricia Allende De Jung |


We'll try to get that list, if we haven't already...does seem like Lisa has upped the ante on that list by identifying a few of the participants by name.

Ray Schmitz

Public Radio has a story this AM (3rd) on DMC that says 30 plus "community leaders" have been meeting to plan for years. This in response to legislatures comments about being out of the loop until plans made public earlier in session, who were the 30 and why have they not been identified???

The comments to this entry are closed.