Instrumental in Helene aftermath, Mission Health ‘back to their old ways’
by Jane Winik Sartwell, Carolina Public Press January 30, 2025
Asheville’s Mission Health has been trying to help the city recover in the aftermath of Tropical Storm Helene. But medical staff and state officials have not softened their stance toward the beleaguered hospital.
New North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson, for one, is not backing down from his office’s lawsuit against the medical provider.
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2023 by predecessor Josh Stein, who is now the governor, accuses parent company HCA Healthcare of reneging on a promise to maintain oncology and emergency services. Stein also claims that the hospital is guilty of understaffing, long wait times and bed shortages.
“I know HCA was hopeful that a new attorney general would drop our office’s lawsuit,” Jackson told Carolina Public Press. “I am the attorney general, and that’s not going to happen.
“HCA broke the promises it made to provide emergency and cancer-care services to the people of Western North Carolina. We’ll keep fighting for this case as long as it takes to restore the health care HCA promised to provide and Western North Carolinians deserve.”
Mission Health’s Helene help
Meanwhile, Mission Health is still trying to recover after Helene left the facility without water for more than two months. Staff, many of whom suffered losses from the storm themselves, worked for days at a time to deal with an influx of storm-related injuries and illnesses.
Pop-up stores were created so they could grab essential supplies.
Stations were set up where they could shower and do laundry.
Gas tanks were filled for free.
By many accounts, Mission Health cared for their employees in the immediate aftermath of the storm.
But that was then.
Now, some hospital staff feel that HCA Healthcare, and Mission Health by extension, has returned to its “old ways.”
“We are right back to cutting corners and making money off of understaffing,” said Kerri Wilson, a Mission Health nurse. “I would say the safety and staffing issues within the hospital are pretty reflective of the way they were in late 2023 when we were placed in ‘immediate jeopardy.’ If surveyors came by over this past weekend, I feel we could go back into ‘immediate jeopardy’ very easily.”
Double ‘jeopardy’
“Immediate Jeopardy” is the most serious citation that the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare can deliver to a hospital. And, like Wilson referenced, that’s what happened in December 2023 when the organization notified HCA Healthcare that Mission Health had been cited for nine instances of patient harm or avoidable deaths in 2022 and 2023.
“The ER is almost full every day, the ICU has been full, so we’ve had patients waiting for extended periods of time,” Wilson explained. “There were reports of nurses having to take care of up to 12 patients each.”
The most common recommendation for nurse-to-patient ratios is one nurse for every four patients.
“There were a few good things that happened after the hurricane,” Wilson continued. “We were able to get gas tanks and things like that during those first, really tough weeks of healing. But as soon as the cameras and the media and FEMA started to leave the area, we saw that a lot of those good things stopped. HCA was putting on a show. It was a lot of PR stunts for them, and that was really disappointing because I gave them the benefit of the doubt.
“They are back to their old ways, and our patients are suffering because of it.”
View from the top
But HCA Healthcare’s top leader holds a different view.
CEO Greg Lowe argues that HCA Healthcare’s status as the largest hospital corporation in the country is what allowed them to serve patients through Helene.
“Because of the support from HCA Healthcare, Mission Hospital and our five acute-care community hospitals were able to remain open to care for our neighbors throughout the storm and its devastating aftermath,” Lowe said in a statement. “Thinking about how we have been able to consistently serve our communities … makes me incredibly grateful to be part of this team. Without HCA Healthcare’s scale and ability to deliver under immense pressure, Mission Health facilities would have been otherwise forced to close.”
Even the hospital’s harshest critics partially agree with that assessment. Julie Mayfield, a Democratic state senator who represents Buncombe County, is one of them. Mayfield heads a coalition of physicians, nurses, elected officials, business leaders, clergy and advocates whose mission is to replace HCA Healthcare as owner of Mission Health with a nonprofit hospital system.
“They really took care of their employees and patients in a way that was kind of surprising to everyone,” Mayfield told CPP. “They would never have been able to do everything they did, as quickly, if they weren’t a major corporation. What the storm showed us, very clearly, is that they have the resources and can make the investments in their patients and employees if it is in their interest.
“But we’re a little bit past that now, and we’re starting to hear some problematic and troubling things from folks on the inside again. They didn’t just wake up and become the company we want them to be.”
Mission Health monopoly
Not only did Stein sue Mission Health for cutting services in Asheville, he’s also been outspoken about what he sees as a health care monopoly in the region.
When a need was found for a hospital in the Buncombe County town of Weaverville, Stein urged North Carolina’s Department of Health Human Services to deny Mission Health’s application.
“Currently, Mission has almost no competition for acute care in Buncombe County. The lack of competition is the result of Mission’s unique history,” he wrote.
The department ultimately awarded the right to build a facility to AdventHealth, a Florida company that operates hospitals in Polk and Henderson counties as well as eight other states.
But the deal isn’t done yet.
On Jan. 13, HCA once again appealed the state’s decision, sending the issue back to court and further delaying the construction of the Weaverville facility.
“We strongly believe Mission Hospital can best meet Western North Carolina’s growing need for complex medical and surgical care,” HCA spokeswoman Nancy Lindell told CPP. “If we had been awarded the beds, Mission Hospital could have had these beds available in the shortest period of time — beds which are desperately needed by our community.”
by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press April 5, 2025
More than 61,000 voters challenged by NC Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin have 15 business days to prove their eligibility, or have their ballots removed from the count in Griffin’s 2024 bid to unseat Justice Allison Riggs, according to a Friday ruling from a three-judge panel of the NC Court of Appeals.
After all votes were tallied in November, the contest came down to 734 votes, with incumbent Riggs, a Democrat, in the lead. Soon thereafter, Griffin, a Republican Court of Appeals judge, asked for recounts and filed election protests.
The recounts maintained Rigg’s lead, while the State Board of Elections dismissed the protests.
Since then, Griffin’s legal challenges and countering lawsuits from Riggs have made their way through state and federal courts on their path to a delayed resolution while Riggs retains her seat.
Friday, the most significant decision in the case came down from two Republican justices on the North Carolina Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision from the panel, the court declared that Griffin’s protests were valid.
Incomplete voter registrations
The panel majority ruled that the largest portion of challenged voters, those who have “incomplete voter registrations” without a driver’s license or Social Security number included in their elections records, are ineligible to vote because they were not registered to vote correctly.
The blame lies squarely on the State Boards of Elections, which did not update voter registration form to make that information required in accordance with the federal Help America Vote Act, the panel majority opinion states.
Once the issue was identified in 2023, the State Board issued a new registration form, but didn’t go back and contact registrants who didn’t list a driver’s license or Social Security number, or check a box saying they had neither to be assigned a unique identification number.
Now, the appellate court panel says those voters are ineligible. The majority emphasized that the court has the right to remove ballots cast by these voters from the count, but is choosing not to do so immediately.
Instead, they are returning the case to the Wake County Superior Court, and instructing them to tell the State Board to contact impacted voters to provide them an opportunity to fill in the missing information. If voters do so within 15 business days of notification, their votes will count. If not, they will be removed from the count for the Supreme Court race, but not other races.
Overseas and military photo ID
The court panel ruled similarly on Griffin’s second protest, which challenged overseas and military voters who did not provide photo identification with their absentee ballots.
During legal proceedings, the State Board has argued that under the state’s Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act, overseas and military voters are exempt from the voter ID requirement. UMOVA is contained in a separate statute from the one including photo ID requirements, and the Board argued that was intentional.
The appellate court panel disagreed. It ruled that the two statutes were intended to be read together, and that all voters are subject to the photo ID requirement.
Again, implicated voters have 15 business days to provide photo identification or an exception form, or be removed from the count.
In his dissent, Judge Toby Hampson, the loan Democrat on the panel, said providing time to fix these issues does not make up for the fact that impacted voters followed the rules available to them at the time.
“The proposition that a significant portion of these 61,682 voters will receive notice and timely take curative measures is a fiction that does not disguise the act of mass disenfranchisement the majority’s decision represents,” Hampson wrote.
Panel nixes ‘Never Residents’
North Carolina law includes an exception to the state constitution’s residency requirement for a small subset of voters labeled “Never Residents:” overseas U.S. citizens who were born outside the country and whose parents or legal guardians’ last residence was North Carolina.
Friday, the appellate court ruled that statute ran afoul of the state Constitution, and voided the votes of Never Residents.
Panel dissent and equal protection issues
Hampson’s dissent had a few arguments that may be seen again in future litigation.
First, he questioned the timing of Griffin’s protests. The statutes and Board interpretations that are being challenged have been in existence for several election cycles.
The majority declared that eligibility is determined as of Election Day, Hampson noted.
“Despite professing this basic tenet, the majority changes the rules of the 2024 election — and only for one race — months after election day,” he wrote. “It does so even though there is no actual showing or forecast that any challenged voter was not registered or otherwise unqualified to vote.”
Second, Hampson objected to which votes are being challenged. All protests include only early and absentee voters, since that was the information Griffin had available at the time he filed them.
Additionally, the overseas and military photo ID protest only includes Guilford County ballots.
“Each of these voters is at risk of being disenfranchised while similarly-situated voters are not, simply because of the county in which they reside, when they cast their ballot, or their physical location,” Hampson wrote.
What’s next after appeals panel?
The appellate decision may be key in determining the ultimate outcome of the race.
Riggs has already declared her intention to appeal the decision to the North Carolina Supreme Court, calling it a “deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people.”
However, if the North Carolina Supreme Court comes to a very possible 3-3 tie, the appellate court’s decision would be the one that stands. Either way, if the state high court fails to take the case or acts to leave the panel’s ruling in place, Riggs’ legal team has indicated it will likely return the case to the federal courts on equal protection grounds.
The State Board also issued a statement saying that they would comply with the order, if it goes into effect.
“Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this ongoing legal dispute, any voter who is concerned that their voter registration information is incomplete or is not up to date should submit an updated voter registration form,” the statement read.
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin was less neutral.
“This partisan decision has no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts,” he said in a statement. “If upheld, this could allow politicians across the country to overturn the will of the people.”
While Griffin has stayed mum since November, North Carolina Republican Chairman Jason Simmons called the ruling a “victory for the rule of law and election integrity” in a social media post.
“This decision and order finally holds the N.C. State Board of Elections accountable for their actions and confirms every legal vote will be counted in this contest,” he wrote.
SUMMARY: Republican Judge Jefferson Griffin is contesting over 60,000 votes in his race against Democratic Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs, claiming registration and ID deficiencies. A 2-1 NC Court of Appeals ruling, with Republican judges siding with Griffin, allows voters 15 business days to correct issues. Riggs, leading by 734 votes after two recounts, vowed to appeal, warning the ruling threatens over 65,000 lawful votes. Griffin also challenges military and overseas ballots. The GOP praised the decision; Democrats condemned it as partisan. The state Supreme Court, with a 5-2 Republican majority, will likely hear the appeal. Riggs has recused herself.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-04 13:39:00
(The Center Square) – Two of three judges on a North Carolina appellate decision say Republican Jefferson Griffin’s appeal has merit and ordered the State Board of Elections to recalculate the nation’s only unresolved election from Nov. 5.
On the 151st day since Election Day, the North Carolina Supreme Court Seat 6 race – an eight-year term seat – has yet to be decided. Friday’s announced decision, from oral arguments two weeks ago, gives 15 business days after notice for missing data in registration records of voters to be filled in, and overseas voters not providing photo identification as required by law to do so.
The voters who never lived in North Carolina are to be dropped from the totals.
Those instructions – Justices John Tyson and Fred Gore supported the ruling, Tobias Hampson dissented – could be appealed. And, it doesn’t give a clear indication if Griffin or Judge Allison Riggs will be the winner.
Riggs, the Democrat and incumbent on the bench after appointment by then-Gov. Roy Cooper, has been poised for a 734-vote triumph as the litigation saga plays out in multiple lawsuits and in both state and federal courtrooms. Griffin, a state appellate judge, has appealed every decision against him.
On Election Night, with 2,658 precincts reporting, Griffin led Riggs by 9,851 votes of 5,540,090 cast. Provisional and absentee ballots that qualified were added to the totals since, swinging the race by 10,585 votes.
The majority opinion read in part, regarding equal terms and fundamental rights in free elections, “This right is violated when ‘votes are not accurately counted (because) (unlawful) () ballots are included in the election results’ The inclusion of even one unlawful ballot in a vote total dilutes the lawful votes and ‘effectively ‘disenfranchises’’ lawful voters.”
The majority opinion is covered in the first 36 pages of the ruling; Hampson’s dissent is in the final 30 pages.
Anderson Clayton, chairwoman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, has called the win “decisive.” Jason Simmons, chairman of the North Carolina GOP, said earlier votes in question are “blatant violations of state law.”
In response to Friday’s announcement, Clayton said the court put party affiliation above the rights of North Carolina voters.” Simmons said, “Today’s decision confirms the facts were on Judge Griffin’s side. This a victory for the rule of law and election integrity.”
The state elections board, majority 3-2 Democrats, and Riggs have been aligned in the litigations.
The Supreme Court bench has historically been nonpartisan and partisan, and since going back to the latter, was 6-1 Democrats in 2019. It is 5-2 Republicans today.
The state Supreme Court calendar has already begun, with Riggs still in place until the election is decided. She has been recused from any proceedings involving the election. Similarly, Griffin has not been involved in any at the appellate level.
Griffin protested about 65,000 ballots on multiple counts, and the state board rejected all of them. Most were by 3-2 party-line votes.
The protests the state board denied included registration records of voters, such as lack of providing either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. State law for that has been in place two decades, dating to 2004.
Other ballots protested and denied by the state board included voters overseas who have never lived in the United States, and for lack of photo identification provided with military and overseas voters.
