Brian Cummins · JAMA Proposal: A Threat to the Health Care Show?

April 16th, 2009

As the Med Mart/Convention Facility project allows the latest wolf into the hen house and the public that’s paying for this barnyard fiasco is stunned with the complexities (i.e., rationale) of the deal that was passed today — see Roldo’s post at realneo & the PlainDealer for a report on the Commissioners approving the deal — let’s not forget that the site location is still not pinned down and that the City of Cleveland still has to consumate our portion of the deal.

And here is another industry news piece from Tradeshow Week that covers a story from JAMA that could have a significan impact on how tradeshows and continuing medical education activies interact. The relationship of the two are critical to MMPI’s plans here in Cleveland.

See some excerpt below and the full article at the link below.

JAMA Proposal: A Threat to the Health Care Show?

– Tradeshow Week, 4/15/2009 5:07:00 PM
http://www.tradeshowweek.com/article/CA6651920.html?nid=4291&rid=720212064&source=title

Excerpt:

The head of the Healthcare Convention & Exhibitors Assn. said he is very concerned about the impact that recommendations concerning health care marketing published earlier this month in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. could have on medical meetings and tradeshows.

HCEA Executive Vice President Eric Allen said, “The model (for health care events) would drastically change if the recommendations like those in JAMA actually were adopted.”

In what was labeled a “special communication” in the April 1 issue of JAMA, Editor-in-Chief Catherine DeAngelis and a group of co-authors called for professional medical associations “to work toward a goal of accepting $0 contributions from industry.” Of most interest to health care meeting planners and show organizers is the recommendation that the societies accept no funding from pharmaceutical or medical device makers for continuing medical education.

While the authors of the article said they had no problems with the traditional exhibit hall, they said they believe it should be nowhere near any accompanying scientific or educational conference…

…The JAMA article’s authors suggested medical associations create a five-year timeline to rid themselves of industry funding, but Allen noted that the recommendations were “not binding.”…

ON ANOTHER NOTE:

I did not report out on Council’s visit to Chicago back on March 31st, but in a nutshell is was useful for Council members to see how MMPI runs its’ Merchandise Mart and the other sites we toured were good examples of components of operations that MMPI wants to incorporate in the Cleveland “Project”.

But, the whole “leadership” thing , i.e., Kennedy, suburban Mayors, Mayor Frank Jackson (PD-Mayor coverage) and the inability to pin down the site, the inadequate public process, together with MMPI’s insistence on having the whole thing built for their benefit to include not providing any tax money to our school system is killing us.

It is killing any potential business that may even consider coming to Cleveland because we are so schizophrenic in appearing to provide a business cart blanche control and then we actually begin to require proper oversight or compensation, or we completely lack focus on process and timely goals (how many times has this thing been put off or delayed).

Our local media provides easy access to local power brokers or their spokespersons to throw wrench after wrench in the works by directing and redirecting. And, unlike Chicago (as I was speaking about above), Cleveland’s corruption or behind closed-doors collusion can’t seem to get it done.

My own view at this point is: 1) require taxes on the Medical Mart facility portion of the project, 2) allow abatement on the malls and Public Auditorium; 3) have a stronger and clearer agreement on how Positively Cleveland can continue their work (I got to see first hand how diligent their staff and some of the hotel managers promote the City during the Rock induction week) – this requires explanation of where all of the portions of the bed tax will go, 4) ensure that in 20 years or what ever the terms are for, that the City of Cleveland will still maintain ownership of the Cleveland Public Auditorium, 5) The City of Cleveland should not be as concerned with the “purchase price” of the Malls and Public Auditorium (I want us to retain ownership in some way of the Auditorium) but instead should be mindful of where the bed tax is going and what is the up and down-sides of profit/loss activities for MMPI, the County and the City – can’t we share in the risk and profits?

This is a cursory take on the issue as I’ve not had the time recently to wade through this project for the umpteenth time. Bottom line, even if the full economic benefit being touted does not materialize (which is likely it won’t), we can put this debacle behind and begin to focus on other needs. That would include education; focusing on our regional strengths and regional economy; providing clearer and more transparent (business/government) processes that make it more apparent to those wanting to do business with us of what our goals are and the rules to play by in doing business in our region.

In terms of supporting the “Project” I do so tenuously to take advantage of the tax and using it to re-invigorate the City’s convention facility. I think something has to be done to remain competitive with the small to medium size markets and to compliment our existing infrastructure of hotels etc…

The only consideration I would make to try to change the deal would be to pull back the scale of the project to drop the Med Mart component, re-direct some of the current bed tax and re-organize our management of our facility and partner locally with the CVB, UH, Clinic – where are they in this current deal? Let the Clinic, UH and Case build a local quasi-version of a medical mart, i.e., conference center out in University Circle (we allowed CSU to build their center and we funded the Q which is a modern day version of our Public Auditorium). A scaled down re-make of our existing convention facility, with use of historic tax credits and maybe a slight increase in our fairly competitive bed tax rate would help as well.

There seems to have been so little in the way of seeking out additional funding sources for this project. The whole thing is being shouldered on the back of a sales tax. No State funding, no additional hospitality sector funding, no other private sector funding other than $20 million that MMPI will use to likely give-away 3-year leases to the first 10 firms who sign up for the Med Mart.

In any case, what is a Cleveland Council member to do. Council as a body has heard nothing with regards to the City’s portion of the deal. I assume the Mayor and possibly Council President are being informed and engaged. I expect I’ll see the City’s agreement several hours before I’ll be required to vote on it. Until then I’ll be slogging through the County’s agreement, reading tea leaves and scheduling an appointment with the Palm Reader across from my Ward office. And, when I can steal time, try to read up on other humble opinions on this and other blogs, alternative media sources and industry publications. The PD these past few months seem to be blowing with the winds of our Corporate “Leaders”. Who haven’t we heard from in terms of trying to site this facility someplace other than the City’s existing site?

And, why has the Mayor nor most of Council not been more pro-active in being critical of this project or advocating for the use of the tax money (which Clevelander’s make up 34%) to be invested in our aging facility. Where has there been any consideration by the County or City with regards to the legacy costs the City will be strapped with if we don’t invest in our existing facility now?

Last 5 posts by Brian Cummins

Random Posts

Category: BFD
2 Comments »

2 Responses to “JAMA Proposal: A Threat to the Health Care Show?”

  1. Frank Revy Says:
    April 17th, 2009 at 10:26 am

    Brian -
    why does it seem that you are the only local politician asking these pertinent questions?
    where are our local leaders – standing up for the people of cleveland’s rights. it is our tax money!

    keep up the good work!

  2. John Polk Says:
    April 17th, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    A few years ago I worked with a young guy named Raymond Pierce, who made an improbable run for Mayor.

    Nobody cared too much what he had to say until 1) Mike White bailed, and 2) Raymond astonished everybody by placing second in the primary and became a candidate in the general election. Then, EVERYBODY had questions.

    He met with a few of The Usual Suspects, and was always asked about the convention center issue. His stock answer was, “The convention business is changing, and the market for conventions is saturated. The community needs a strategy for competing for the convention and business meetings we have the facilities to to. A convention center isn’t a strategy. And a city with Cleveland’s issues should be careful about how we spend the public’s money.”

    He received almost no corporate support (though he still came within 5,000 votes of winning), and had the then-President of the Chamber making fun of him on TV.

    All the corporate support went to Jane Campbell, who had an “open mind” on the subject. When it turned out she couldn’t deliver on a convention center either, the same guys who supported her turned on her. She lost the next election, to the current incumbent.

    There are two points here: 1) There’s great risk to ANY elected official who asks inappropriate questions, and; 2) everybody knows the score. There’s little objective analysis for the project which suggests a net upside for the public’s investment. All reality suggests the project will be a net loser.

    But the biggest reality of all is that the proponents don’t care about the data. This is all about having the power to make the deal. The lawyers will get paid, as will the investment bankers, the contractors, the property owners, and the owner/manager of the facility. THEIR economies will develop just fine. Any broader-scale benefit will be incidental, and the problems which arise will arise on somebody else’s watch…