Guest Editorial by former Sutter hospital employee
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2014. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Latest news on Sutter Health's plans for our region
Copyright © 2014. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
California Medical Association and Medical Society Position Statement on Sutter Health's plans for hospital care in Del Norte County
|
Monday, April 21, 2014
Lawsuit Targets Critical Access - Newspaper article
Beverly Hussey contends hospital violated contract
A lawsuit against Sutter Coast Hospital has been filed by the widow of
the donor of the land where it was built, saying that plans to convert
the facility to a Critical Access Hospital violates the donation
contract stating Sutter must maintain an acute care hospital.
The lawsuit filed by Beverly Hussey also claims that
three hospital board members who are also employees of Sutter Health
violated the obligations of a charitable trust by not recusing
themselves from votes to convert to Critical Access and to “regionalize”
(merge the local hospital with a Bay Area-based Sutter corporation).
By voting, the board members were acting in their own interest and not
the community’s, according to the suit.
“The board members violated their respective duties
against self-dealing because they stood to benefit from bonuses paid to
employees of Sutter Health,” states the lawsuit filed March 26 by a Los
Angeles-based law firm known for prominent anti-trust cases against
large corporations. Since Critical Access status would increase revenue
for Sutter Health, “the board members stood to benefit financially from
their votes,” the suit states.
Michael Duncheon, Sutter Health’s regional legal
counsel, said in an email that “Sutter Coast Hospital is and will remain
an acute care hospital. Critical Access does not change that reality,”
he said.
“The allegation that employees on the Board stood to
benefit from regionalization is false and libelous” and could result in a
countersuit, Duncheon wrote.
Donation was 26 years ago
In 1988, Francis “Sonny” Hussey donated several acres
on Washington Boulevard to Sutter Coast Hospital on the condition that
the property “shall be used primarily for healthcare related purposes.
Permissible uses shall include, but not be limited to, acute care
hospital, medical laboratories, medical offices, trauma centers,
convalescent care and similar uses,” states the 1988 contract.
According to the suit, Sonny Hussey was motivated to
improve health care in Del Norte County after a car accident in 1959
sent his loaded gasoline truck hurtling 150 feet down a mountainside.
“For approximately eight hours Mr. Hussey lay
undiscovered until a passing logger by chance saw the wreckage. The
logger clambered down the steep cliff and found Mr. Hussey only
semi-conscious with a crushed chest,” the lawsuit states. “Mr. Hussey’s
near death experience triggered Mr. Hussey to donate an unprecedented
and substantial amount of his real property to Sutter in order for
Sutter to develop and maintain an acute care hospital.”
Sutter Coast Hospital, which was operating the old
Seaside Hospital building on A Street via a lease through the Del Norte
Healthcare District, agreed to build the hospital on the donated
property, opening its doors in 1992.
“The old facility leaked and we had a lot of problems,”
said Gerald Cochran, who as chairman of Sutter Coast Hospital in 1988,
signed the agreement with Hussey.
The lawsuit states that Sutter Coast violated the
contract for the donation on Dec. 5, 2013, when the Board of Directors
“voted to change Sutter’s designation from a full service acute care
hospital to a critical access facility.”
The plaintiff’s lawyers said that if the implementation
of a Critical Access hospital continues during the lawsuit, they might
seek a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction
blocking the conversion.
“We definitely think there are strong grounds that
would prevent the downgrade by looking at the contractual language and
intent of the agreement,” said Majed Dakak, an attorney for the law firm
handling the case, Blecher Collins Pepperman and Joye P.C. “What Sutter
is doing is really putting the community in peril.”
What’s an acute care hospital?
According to California state law, a “general acute
care hospital” is a facility that “provides 24-hour inpatient care,
including the following basic services: medical, nursing, surgical,
anesthesia, laboratory, radiology, pharmacy, and dietary services.”
Sutter Coast Hospital has no plans to eliminate any of those services, according to Duncheon.
Since Sutter Coast is already qualified as a “rural
general acute care hospital,” the facility is not required to provide
surgery and anesthesia services, according to state law. Duncheon said
that there are no plans to eliminate or even reduce surgical or
anesthesia services.
The suit states that there is no incentive to maintain
or expand services as a Critical Access hospital, “which is contrary to
the language and intent of the (contract).”
In information provided by Duncheon, Sutter Health
states that all services will remain under Critical Access designation,
including: in- and out-patient surgery, OB services, “24/7/365 MD in the
hospital for the Emergency Department” and “24/7/365 hospitalist,” lab
services, radiology services, respiratory therapy services,
rehabilitation services, 24/7 case management, and a pharmacy for
inpatients.
State law clearly states that Critical Access hospitals are also considered general acute care hospitals:
“Every hospital designated by the department as a
critical access hospital and certified as such by the United States
Department of Health and Human Services shall be deemed to be a general
acute care hospital.”
The state could waive certain acute care requirements
for Critical Access hospitals if “it is in the public interest to do so”
and “the waiver would not negatively affect the quality of patient
care,” according to state law.
Asked how the plaintiff’s case would reconcile with the
state law saying Critical Access hospitals are acute care hospitals,
Dakak said “that’s going to get into legal strategy so I can’t comment
on that.”
Critical Access concerns
The lawsuit states that if Sutter Coast converts to
Critical Access as planned it will be “creating a tremendous burden on
and at times a complete barrier to acute care treatment at Sutter.”
Since Critical Access facilities have a cap of 25
in-patient beds, there is likely to be an increase in patient transfers
to other hospitals. The lawsuit says that a patient could be forced to
wait for several hours while an acceptable facility is located to accept
the patient.
Sutter Coast interim CEO Linda Horn recently wrote in a
Triplicate Coastal Voices piece that “if we were already a Critical
Access hospital ... in the last 12 months, we would have had to transfer
approximately 40 additional patients out.”
Horn said this would be a 6 percent increase in patient
transfers while acknowledging that “I understand that if you are one of
those patients, it doesn’t matter to you if it’s one or 40.”
Beverly Hussey, who has had to go to Sutter Coast
several times but has never been air-ambulanced to another hospital, was
less not impressed, saying of Horn’s writing:
“She’s telling everyone how wonderful it’s going to be while encouraging everyone to join Cal -Ore Life Flight.”
Necessary to stay afloat?
Besides the claims based on Sutter Coast not
maintaining an acute care hospital, the lawsuit ‘s other claim is based
on certain Sutter Coast board members acting in their own self interest,
violating the hospital’s charitable trust status.
“These board members, who stood to benefit directly or
indirectly, by virtue of transferring hospital ownership and governance,
should have recused themselves but instead participated and voted for
regionalization” and to “downgrade the hospital’s status,” the lawsuit
states.
Sutter Coast officials have stated that converting to a
Critical Access hospital, which receives cost-based Medicare payments,
is necessary to stay financially afloat, but the lawsuit alleges that
the conversion is being pursued out of “corporate greed” in an attempt
to “game the system.”
The lawsuit states that Sutter Coast was profitable
every year from 1985 until 2010 (Sutter officials said that the hospital
has had financial losses since 2009). In 2011 the hospital started
operating without a chief financial officer (illegally, according to the
lawsuit).
“Thus, the decision to convert to Critical Access was
based on claims of financial losses during the only period in Sutter’s
history when the hospital was illegally operating without a Chief
Financial Officer,” the lawsuit states.
This was the also the time that the hospital was moving
toward regionalization, and the lawsuit claims that the votes for
regionalization and Critical Access violated the obligations of a
charitable trust, including “its duty to avoid self dealing.”
Duncheon responded that the hospital has always
operated with the “requisite financial staff” and that when the
locally-based CFO, Jim Strong, stepped down, his duties were fulfilled
by John Gates a Sutter CFO based in San Francisco.
“There is no merit to the claim that an alleged lack of CFO had anything to do with the losses,” Duncheon said.
In February, Mrs. Hussey and her attorneys sent a
letter to Sutter Coast demanding that the hospital retract the decision
to downgrade, as the contract gives Sutter 30 days to correct violations
of the contract.
“Sutter has refused to alter its decision to downgrade the hospital status,” the lawsuit states.
Reach Adam Spencer at
aspencer@triplicate.com.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Guest Editorial by Dale Bohling
Today's newsletter is a guest editorial by Dale Bohling, a former railroad employee of 37 years who served his local labor union as an in-shop representative, and a current resident of Crescent City, CA, where the Sutter Coast Hospital Board of Directors (at the recommendation of Sutter Health executives) has voted to take the following actions:
(1) Dissolve themselves as the hospital's governing body.
(2) Transfer ownership of the region's only hospital from within the community to a corporation in San Francisco which is controlled by Sutter Health.
(3) Downsize the hospital by 50% in order to qualify for higher Medicare payments.
Steps (1) and (2) are on hold "for the time being" due to public outcry.
Sutter Health executives state these moves are needed for financial reasons, claiming Sutter Coast Hospital ("SCH") has not been profitable since 2008. A quick fact check reveals otherwise. SCH's IRS Form 990 shows a net revenue of $6.5 million in 2010. In 2009, profits were $759,000. (source: Guidestar.com)
Sutter Health's net profits in 2012 were $735 million. (source: http://www.
SCH CEO Linda Horn claims the hospital is closing beds which "are empty every day--and have been for years." That statement is false. Read on to see the facts . . .
There's no sugar-coating in-patient bed reduction by Dale Bohling
Why does the story of Little Red Riding Hood come to my mind as I read Sutter Health executive Linda Horn's latest attempt to assuage community trepidations over Sutter Health Corporation's dual decisions to convert Sutter Coast Hospital to Critical Access and to move the governing board hundreds of miles away from the community? ("Same services offered under Critical Access", published 4/4/14 in The Del Norte Triplicate).
Maybe it was the wolf's cloaking of his evil intentions as well as his ravenous appetite that sparked the comparison. It may also have been the vulnerability of Little Red Riding Hood as she began to realize that appearances can be deceiving which is seemingly what emerges within our community with each sugar coated apologetic presented to the community by Sutter Health.
While taking four whole paragraphs to set the stage for her intended splurge, Ms. Horn painted the canvas with images of hospital staff being awarded for their dedication to their patients and recognition of career tenure by their employer. Along the way she sprinkled flowers of good will with her sharing of Sutter Health's magnanimous philanthropy in the community. An altogether rosy picture emerged of a community and the beneficent corporation that built and maintained the local full service hospital. That is, of course, an idealized picture of how things SHOULD be and seemingly HAVE been. Enter the cloaking:
"It is our commitment and desire to continue being a full service hospital and an active community partner", Ms. Horn wrote. She avoids explaining how to reconcile that statement with the fact of intent by Sutter Health to reduce that hospital by half. How does dividing something by half allow it to remain the same as before the division?
If the answer lies in the simple closing of doors, with beds that are "empty every day--and have been for years", as Ms. Horn asserts, I see little cause for concern. But Ms. Horn's assertion is simply NOT TRUE. Here are the facts:
(1) The beds have NOT been empty for years. According to Sutter's own website, there were 62 days in the period 1/1/12 to 6/30/13 when the hospital census exceeded 25, including multiple days within the last year. (source:
Remember, Critical Access hospitals begin shipping adult, non-maternity patients when the census is just 22, so the impact is even worse than it at first seems.
How can Ms. Horn's statement be viewed as anything other than a deliberate deception or ignorance of Sutter Coast's own data which was released to the Camden Group to be used in their study?
(2) Closing doors is not what actually takes place. The rooms are not just closed, they are locked. Permission to remove the locks must be obtained from some unspecified government agency, in the event of a declared emergency or disaster, when time is of the essence.
(3) The concomitant evisceration of the attendant staff whether highly skilled or ancillary, top to bottom, cannot be reversed by declaration of the state or anyone else.
People will lose their livelihood as their training and skills are stripped away from the full service setting owing to Critical Access designation. Yet this loss of dedicated hospital staff is presented by Ms. Horn as being instantly replaceable at the time of an extraordinary event involving a mass influx of casualties, like merely opening doors and dusting off sheets.
Is Ms. Horn saying that a flood of volunteers will come to the fore to fill in the gaps? Volunteers will do what they are trained to do, but what of medical skills?
Does Sutter Health expect us to believe they can muster a fully trained staff with a snap of the fingers?
Equally inexplicable is the concept of being an active (caring?) community partner while simultaneously removing any semblance of local governance 300+ miles distant where any meaningful input would be negligible. A good community partner does not cause members of that community additional grief by shipping them off to distant hospitals for care, leaving them devoid of the support of loved ones and the additional financial burden of getting a 2nd mortgage on their homes to finance transportation back home while in a recumbent state. Woe to he who falls ill under the shadow of Critical Access.
As a sedative to a concerned community, Linda Horn offers this choice parsing of words: "Remember that a viable full service hospital will sustain real estate values, jobs and services in our community. We are offering the same services after our CAH designation as we offer today". Yes, Ms. Horn, the same services, only HALVED.
Dale L. Bohling
Crescent City
Here's how you can help:
If you wish to retain local ownership of a full service, non-Critical Access hospital in our region, please write to the Board of Supervisors, 981 H. St., Crescent City, CA 95531. Our Supervisors have asked Sutter to reconsider their actions and release their data to the public. Sutter refuses to comply. But our elected leaders have the authority to end this conflict with Sutter Health by exercising their right of eminent domain, to hold Sutter accountable to the promises they made to this community when they were invited here--to provide expanded services and improved quality of care. GJD
Please forward this email to friends and post on social media.
|
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Guest article by Shellie Babich, Healthcare District Chair
|
|
As
many readers are aware, Sutter Health has taken action to downsize and
take ownership of Sutter Coast Hospital. Today's newsletter by Shellie
Babich, Physician Assistant and Chair of the Del Norte Healthcare
District, informs our community on the steps our elected leaders are
taking to preserve and expand access to hospital care in our region.
Past newsletters are available at www.crescentcityhospital.
I
appreciate all of your feedback, and encourage anyone with ideas on
improving healthcare services in our region to contact me at 707-465-1126 or by email at drgjduncan@yahoo.com
Please forward this newsletter to friends, post on your social media
sites, and send me an email if you are not receiving these free
newsletters but would like to add your name to our list of recipients.
Before we get to Shellie's article, and before you read anything about the hospital, please ask yourself two questions:
(1) Is the information from someone with a financial tie to Sutter?
(2) Did the person giving the information sign a confidentiality agreement for Sutter?
In my case, and for Shellie, the answer to both questions is "no."
Sincerely,
Greg Duncan, M.D.
|
| Your Healthcare District Takes Action to Save Medical Care for Our Region
by Shellie Babich, Chair, Del Norte Healthcare District
|
As
a lifelong resident of Del Norte County, local healthcare provider, and
Chair of the Del Norte Healthcare District Board, I write to inform
readers on the history of Sutter Health in our region, and how your
Healthcare District Board is working to preserve and expand your access
to affordable healthcare.
Twenty eight years
ago, the Del Norte Healthcare District invited Sutter Health to manage
our locally owned hospital. In exchange for a monopoly over hospital
care in our region, Sutter Health promised to manage a locally owned
hospital, governed by a local Board of Directors, with expanded
services. The Healthcare District promised to not compete with Sutter
Coast Hospital. For 26 years, this relationship served our community
well.
Then, on November 3,
2011, the Board of Directors of Sutter Coast Hospital ("SCH") abruptly
and unilaterally chose to end their relationship with this community. Without
engaging the public, notifying hospital medical staff or employees, or
consulting with the Healthcare District, the SCH Board voted to transfer
ownership and governance of Sutter Coast Hospital to a corporation
located in San Francisco and controlled by Sutter Health. The
transfer of ownership was part of a Sutter Health statewide strategy
called "Regionalization." The SCH Board did not read the bylaws of the
corporation which would become owner of Sutter Coast Hospital before
they voted to transfer hospital ownership to that corporation, nor did
they look at any options other than those recommended by Sutter Health
executives and attorneys.
Why is hospital
ownership so important? Because under regional ownership, every future
decision affecting our only hospital will be made by a Board of
Directors in San Francisco. One
such decision, which was actually made by our local Board (at the
recommendation of Sutter Health executives), is their recent choice to
downsize Sutter Coast Hospital by 50% in order to qualify for higher
payments for the care of Medicare patients, under a federally subsidized
program called "Critical Access."
Sutter's decision to downsize the hospital to a Critical Access facility brings several guarantees:
(1) More profits for Sutter Health.
(2) More patients flown out to other hospitals.
(3) A cap on future growth of the hospital.
(4) Fewer local jobs.
When a hospital downsizes, the staff is also downsized, and employees without work will leave our county. Just
this week, Sutter Health announced that local hospital employees will
have their jobs eliminated as part of a statewide Sutter plan known as
"centralization," whereby local jobs are outsourced to Sutter's regional
service centers. Sutter claims all these changes are needed
to stem financial losses. In 2012, Sutter Health reported net profits
of $735 million.
The Healthcare District opposes to Sutter's decision to outsource local healthcare related jobs. In
fact, in our Temporary Restraining Order filed against Sutter, we
successfully blocked Sutter from transferring jobs out of the county, in
order to protect hospital employees while the lawsuit was heard.
If Sutter is permitted
to "regionalize" us, every future decision affecting our healthcare
will be made by a distant Board. This includes whether or not to
continue supporting current hospital service lines (such as Pediatrics,
Obstetrics, and Intensive Care), surgical equipment (for orthopedic and
general surgery, eye surgery, and urology), and diagnostic machines (MRI
and CT scanners, nuclear medicine, and ultrasound). In
addition, patient care policies, employee benefits, staffing levels,
contracts with physicians and employees, and how much to charge for your
care--all will be decided in a Board room in San Francisco, closed to
the public. Many local residents who have received care at
Sutter Coast have expressed concern over Sutter's high charges for care
and aggressive collections practices. If Sutter Health takes ownership
of Sutter Coast, we will have no local recourse to address these
concerns, and no authority over the future of the hospital, forever.
Your elected Del Norte
Healthcare District Board believes both of Sutter's decisions (Critical
Access and Regionalization) were made for the benefit of Sutter Health,
and are not in the best interests of this community. On
January 28, 2014, the Del Norte Healthcare District unanimously
resolved that Sutter Coast Hospital should remain a locally owned acute
care hospital, not a Critical Access hospital owned and governed from
San Francisco. Since it is clear Sutter Health is determined
to enact its corporate plans, and end its longstanding relationship with
our community, the Healthcare District is taking action.
To date, three
healthcare systems other than Sutter Health have expressed an interest
in a closer affiliation with our community. In addition, a Healthcare
District subcommittee initiated discussions this week with a national
healthcare firm which has evaluated our market and stands ready to
assist in any capacity the District requests.
In any challenging
environment, a trustworthy partner is essential. Sutter Health, with
their closed Board meetings, mandatory confidentiality agreements, inconsistent
statements, and refusal to honor county requests to release documents,
is no longer a trusted partner. I understand healthcare is changing,
and our community needs to adapt to those changes. But our primary mission must be to serve our citizens, not a distant corporation.
The Del Norte
Healthcare District, in collaboration with other county and city
leaders, is committed to providing accessible and affordable healthcare
to the 42,000 residents and thousands of yearly visitors to the hospital
service area. We appreciate your input thus far and look forward to
working with you in an open, honest, and transparent manner in the years
to come.
Sincerely,
Shellie Babich
Chair, Del Norte Healthcare District
Saturday, March 15, 2014
The Future of Healthcare in Our Region
The Future of Healthcare in Our Region
|
 |
Today's
guest editorial is written by Dr. Kevin Caldwell, a local Family
Practice physician and frequent recipient of Del Norte County's
"favorite physician" award.
Please
forward this newsletter to anyone who may be interested, and post it on
social media. I also appreciate your emails with ideas on this issue,
and how to improve transparency and affordability of healthcare.
Gregory J. Duncan, M.D.
|
| Our Healthcare Decisions Must be Based on Fact and Transparency by Kevin Caldwell, M.D. |
As a current Del Norte
Healthcare District Board member, three term former Chief of Staff and
Board member of Sutter Coast Hospital ("SCH"), and local physician for
the past 29 years, I would like to clarify some information published in
last week's Del Norte Triplicate which may have left readers confused
as to the ownership of SCH. As you read articles on Sutter's plans for
our community, please ask yourself if the information was written by
someone who receives money from Sutter Health. I have no financial ties
of any kind with any Sutter corporations.
First, a definition of
Regionalization: a Sutter Health statewide policy to transfer
ownership of community owned Sutter affiliated hospitals FROM local
ownership TO regional ownership. In our case, Regionalization would
transfer ownership of Sutter Coast Hospital (which has always been owned
and governed locally) FROM Del Norte County TO Sutter West Bay Region
in San Francisco.
Sutter Coast Hospital
is currently owned by the corporation of Sutter Coast Hospital, and is
governed by a Board of Directors, the majority of whom reside locally.
SCH is affiliated with, and managed by, Sutter Health. How do I know
this?
(1) The settlement agreement between Sutter Health and the Del Norte Healthcare District states, "Sutter Coast Hospital owns Sutter Coast Hospital."
In the first draft of the settlement agreement, Sutter attorneys
inserted the statement, "Sutter Health owns Sutter Coast Hospital," but
the Healthcare District made Sutter Health remove that statement,
because it was false. Nevertheless, SCH CEO Linda Horn continued to
spread the false claim that Sutter Health owns SCH.
(2) Sutter West Bay
Region President Mike Cohill, in a recorded meeting held in Del Norte
County on 8/2/12, stated that Sutter Coast Hospital is owned by Sutter
Coast Hospital.
(3) Sutter Coast
Hospital currently has its own Board of Directors, bylaws, Articles of
Incorporation, and tax I.D. number, all of which are dissolved with
Regionalization.
In last week's Del
Norte Triplicate, editor Richard Wiens quotes the following from the
Settlement Agreement between Sutter Health and the Del Norte Healthcare
District: "Sutter Health has been the sole general member of Sutter
Coast Hospital, with the right to exercise control over it, since its
inception." I suspect few readers understand the meaning of that
statement.
The "General Member"
is Sutter Health. In some corporations, the General Member is
all-powerful. In our case, the General Member is not--Sutter Coast has a number of powers over Sutter Health.
"Control," in the sense used here, is a legal term which means Sutter
Health has the power to appoint the majority of the SCH Board. "Control"
does not mean Sutter Health can do whatever they want--their powers are
limited by SCH bylaws, Sutter Health bylaws, Medicare regulations,
Joint Commission standards of hospital accreditation, and California
law. Evidence of Sutter's repeated violations of these regulations, and California law, will be detailed in future articles.
According to Mike
Cohill, Sutter Health and SCH are separate corporations, each with its
own unique powers (which Mr. Cohill calls "reserve powers"), as defined
in the bylaws of each corporation. One of SCH's reserve powers is the
authority to approve and disapprove of mergers. In other words, Sutter
Health cannot transfer ownership of Sutter Coast out of Del Norte
County (Regionalize) without the approval of the Board of Directors of
SCH.
The SCH Board did vote
to Regionalize on 11/3/11, over my objection. I advised my fellow
hospital Board members that we should not vote on something we did not
understand. The Board had not read the Regional bylaws before voting to
Regionalize, although three hospital Board members falsely stated they
had read the Regional bylaws in advance of the Regionalization vote. I
know this because the Regional bylaws were not distributed to the SCH Board until 11/8/11, five days after the vote to Regionalize. So,
the hospital Board voted on a policy they had no way of understanding.
Does a Board have a responsibility to cast an informed vote?
In 2011, Sutter
Regional executive Larry Dempsey, Esq., re-wrote the bylaws of SCH,
weakening many of the hospital's reserve powers over Sutter Health. Mr.
Dempsey did not explain this fact to the SCH Board, which had no
independent legal counsel. On 2/3/11, following minimal discussion, Mr.
Dempsey's 1300 changes to the SCH bylaws were approved by the SCH
Board.
The California State Bar is the agency which oversees attorney conduct. It is a Bar rule that one attorney cannot represent two parties without the written informed consent of both parties. Sutter
Health attorneys never obtained consent from SCH before re-writing the
SCH bylaws or asking the SCH Board to dissolve themselves and transfer
hospital ownership to San Francisco. Dr. Duncan and I filed a complaint regarding two Sutter Health attorneys to the State Bar, which is currently under review.
The fact is, despite
overwhelming community opposition to Sutter's plans for this region,
Sutter refuses to budge. Sutter Health is determined to end their 28
year relationship of managing a locally owned, Acute Care hospital in
Del Norte County. The SCH Board refused to rescind their Regionalization
vote. Regionalization remains SCH Board policy. Sutter will not
release any Board meeting minutes. Last May, SCH CEO Linda Horn
announced in a televised meeting that "Critical Access is not being
discussed," even though the SCH Board had just approved a $170,000 study
on the hospital which mandated an analysis of Critical Access. In
December, the SCH Board voted for Critical Access. Last month, they
filed the application.
The SCH Board refuses
to discuss community letters of concern in the Board room, which remains
closed to the public. Sutter Coast's ongoing secrecy and high prices
have compelled many in our community to seek care at distant hospitals,
resulting in a steady decline in our hospital census over the past year.
During our 1/28/14
meeting, the Del Norte Healthcare District voted unanimously to oppose
Critical Access and Regionalization. The Triplicate did not report on
that resolution, so the District ran the announcement as a paid
advertisement. We believe our community deserves options for their
healthcare. Three other healthcare systems have offered to provide capital to develop an affiliation with our hospital.
Please share your thoughts with me and my fellow Board members at:
The Del Norte Healthcare District, 550 E. Washington Blvd., Crescent
City, CA 95531. We want to hear from you.
Kevin J. Caldwell, M.D.
Redwood Family Practice
Crescent City, CA
Saturday, February 15, 2014
How to stop Sutter from downsizing our hospital
Working together, we can stop Sutter Health from implementing their corporate plan for our healthcare
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday,
I was contacted by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH)
regarding Critical Access Designation at Sutter Coast Hospital. CDPH is
seeking input from local residents. They want to know if local
residents approve of downsizing the hospital, and how it will affect you
and your loved ones. They asked where we will be transferring patients
when the hospital is full due to the 25 bed cap imposed by Critical
Access. (Answer: Wherever a bed is available between Portland and San
Francisco).
At the end of this guest editorial, please read how you can help stop Sutter Health from downsizing our region's only hospital.
|
|
Guest Editorial by Leah Eidam, Crescent City, CA
|
On 12/5/13, Sutter
Health executives and the Sutter Coast Hospital Board voted to downsize
Sutter Coast to a Critical Access Hospital. In response, the Del Norte
Healthcare District, a local government body elected to promote health
services for county residents, voted unanimously to oppose Sutter's
plans. The Healthcare District resolved to "explore all alternatives to
maintain local ownership and shared governance of our hospital."
Sutter wants you to think they cannot be stopped. They are wrong. Let's support the Healthcare District and tell Sutter it is NOT over. The
State of California and the Federal Government will decide whether
Critical Access will be granted to Sutter Health. That means YOU not Sutter Health will make the decision. Voice YOUR opinion.
What YOU need to know:
1) Sutter Health is a tax-exempt public benefit charity funded by billions of dollars in tax-exempt bonds. Their purpose for existing is to help YOU. This is very important to remember as you read further.
2) A Sutter Executive
has said that Crescent City "was not sophisticated enough" to understand
Regionalization. Was he talking about YOU?
3) Sutter Hospital rates are roughly 60% higher than other hospitals in California. Does that hurt YOU?
4) The steady decline
in privately insured patients at Sutter Coast is due, in large part, to
patients from Crescent City travelling to other hospitals in California
and Oregon, where the same care costs 60% less than at our local
hospital. Do YOU have to travel for your healthcare?
NOW THE REASONS WHY:
1) Between 2007 and 2012 many Sutter Health executives doubled their own compensation.
2) Sutter Health CEO
Pat Fry's compensation increased from $2,287,763 in 2007 to $6,393,883
in 2012. That's a $4,106,120 increase--almost triple.
3) In 2012, the top 10 Sutter Health executives were paid a total of $27,644,426. That's millions, folks.
4) Their salaries are paid from YOUR hospital bills. Remember the 60% more YOU pay at Sutter Coast.
5) Every year from
1985, when Sutter took over the hospital, until 2010 the hospital was
profitable. The only time the hospital reported losses was after they
got rid of the Chief Financial Officer.
6) There has been no independent audit of the Hospital finances since 2007.
If all of this seems very unfair, YOUR help is needed. Remember YOUR hospital is a tax-exempt public benefit charity. There are avenues available to BLOCK conversion to Critical Access.
In addition to Sutter's plan to downsize our hospital to Critical Access, do YOU
want to continue to support and pay exorbitant salaries to executives
in San Francisco by paying 60% more for your health care? If the answer
is no, please read on to learn how to stop Sutter Health . . .
|
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO STOP SUTTER HEALTH
Take a few minutes to write a letter. Three sentences is enough. Here are some facts for letters:
- Critical Access was funded in order to improve healthcare access by subsidizing tiny hospitals. By cutting beds to qualify, Sutter is using the program to reduce access to care in order to increase their payments from Medicare.
- At Sutter Lakeside Hospital, where Sutter cut beds to qualify for Critical Access designation in 2008, emergency patient transfers out of Lakeside quadrupled, and Sutter Lakeside became the number one recipient of Medicare funds among the nation's 1300 Critical Access hospitals.
- Critical Access at Sutter Coast will result in patients being airlifted to outside hospitals--at the patients' expense, separated from their family, friends, and local doctor, and responsible for their return trip home.
The California agency
which oversees hospitals converting to Critical Access states the
program is intended to preserve access and improve quality of healthcare
services to rural Californians. If you believe downsizing the hospital
does not fit that goal, write letters to:
(1) Dana Forney,
California Department of Public Health, Licensing and Certification,
2170 Northpoint Parkway, Santa Rosa, CA 95407
(2) Alex Garza, CAPT, USPHS, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Division of Survey and Certification, 90 7th St, Suite 5-300 (5W), San Francisco, CA 94103-6707 (Mr. Garza's email is alex.garza@cms.hhs.gov)
(3) The Del Norte
Triplicate, 312 H. St., P.O. Box 277, Crescent City, CA 95531. Include
your city and phone number at the bottom of the letter. Phone numbers
are not published but allow the paper to contact individuals submitting
letters.
If you need help with
letters, have information to share, or would like to write an article
for this newsletter, please call me at 707-465-1126 or email to drgjduncan@yahoo.com Join
the more than 3,000 local residents who oppose Sutter's plans by
signing the petition at my office on 1200 Marshall St., Crescent City.
Greg Duncan, M.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)