Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oncology Clinic Closure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to oppose closure of local oncology/infusion clinic; petition, long drives cited
Summary
Multiple public commenters, including two long‑time patients, urged the council to help reverse a scheduled August closure of the local oncology/infusion clinic run by Texas Oncology, saying the clinic serves about 1,000 patients and that alternatives would require two‑ to three‑hour round trips.
Several Cleveland-area residents used the public‑comment period to urge the council to intervene after they learned the local oncology/infusion clinic — originally opened by Dr. Pierre Kory and since acquired by Texas Oncology/US Oncology (McKesson) — is scheduled to close at the end of August.
Judith Redmond told the council the clinic was opened seven years ago and "as I understand it, it serves about 1000 plus patients." She described herself as a long‑term patient who depends on infusions and said a closure would force many patients across Liberty, San Jacinto and Polk counties to travel to Kingwood or further for treatment, creating two‑ to three‑hour round trips in addition to lengthy infusion times.
Cheryl Ruth, who said she was treated locally since a 2019 cancer diagnosis, pressed the council for help and for a formal letter urging the operator to find staffing solutions or a partner to keep services in Cleveland. She characterized the change after acquisition as driven by corporate decisions: "They're closing Texas Oncology... McKesson is a huge corporation. They made $4,700,000 last year. It's a money grab." Ruth said she has a change.org petition with roughly 647 signatures and asked council to demand solutions, including staffing, partnership or transfer to another oncology provider.
Mayor Danny Lee and other council members acknowledged they have limited direct authority over private operator decisions but expressed sympathy and encouraged continued advocacy and contacting corporate leadership. Council members said they would accept the residents’ materials and that staff would consider what formal support the city can provide (for example, letters of support or outreach to regional officials). No binding council action on the clinic’s ownership or operations was recorded in the transcript.
Next steps recorded in the meeting: residents were asked to provide documentation and staff said the city would pass along constituent concerns to appropriate contacts; no company representative was present to respond during the meeting.
