West Penn Allegheny's future: Iffy at best
West Penn Allegheny Health System is bleeding money and patients. Can a bleeding medical and support staff be far behind?
The bonds of the health system that is a conglomeration of Pittsburgh's old West Penn and Allegheny General hospitals — formed in the aftermath of the latter's near-spectacular collapse from the implosion of the cancerous Allegheny Health, Education and Research Foundation — are junk.
It's dangerously close to default, surviving only because of the beneficence of Highmark Inc. The insurance giant keeps throwing money lifelines to West Penn Allegheny but, for its efforts, receives only South Side salutes in return.
The hospital system is the very definition of “unsustainable.” It's being “consulted” to death. And its credibility is just about bled out.
West Penn Allegheny is headed to certain bankruptcy. Forced or voluntary is the only question.
Bondholders could force it into a messy, shotgun affair. Could liquidation be a possibility?
Or the health system could do the responsible thing and, as Highmark suggested, enter into Chapter 11 reorganizational bankruptcy. That would give West Penn Allegheny breathing space to restructure its debt and better position itself for the takeover that must come, whether it be by Highmark or another concern.
Will West Penn Allegheny do the right thing? Or will it scuttle itself on the rocks of inexplicable obduracy?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.