CALIFORNIA LOCAL POLITICIANS OBSTRUCT PRIVATE HOSPITALS

In an unusual move that has rocked the local hospital community, the Sacramento City Council is poised to stretch its approval authority over construction projects to include the way large medical facilities spend money and care for patients. Under the plan, the council would go beyond a typical examination of whether a proposed medical facility poses environmental, traffic or other impacts. Added to its considerations would be nine "community benefit principles" that range from collection practices to labor issues. The plan was drafted by a coalition of religious leaders, social-justice activists and representatives from the Service Employees International Union and the Sacramento Central Labor Council.

Steve Cohn, one of four City Council members bringing the issue for a vote Thursday evening, said he supports the coalition's push for equitable health care. Council members Rob Fong, Lauren Hammond and Kevin McCarty also have attached their names to the resolution. "These (hospitals) are nonprofits that pay the city no property tax," Cohn said. "There is a notion that they should be held to a certain standard to provide benefits to the entire community - that's what's driving this." Cohn said he is confident that there will be enough support in the nine-member council to pass the resolution, which would serve as a legal guideline. However, he said he was not certain there was support to pass the plan as an ordinance.

Hospital and Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce officials said hospitals already are regulated by state and federal agencies. "Our greatest fear is that there may be an additional delay of projects currently in the system at a time when Sacramento has near the lowest number of acute hospital beds per capita (in the state)," said Scott Seamons, regional vice president of the Hospital Council of Northern and Central California. The Sacramento chamber board Tuesday night voted unanimously to "strongly oppose" the community-benefit principles, its president, Matt Mahood, said. "The council should stay out of the health care business," Mahood said. "This resolution has the potential to make certain any future hospital developments will not be done in the city of Sacramento. They'll take them to other jurisdictions." .....

The Hospital Council has taken a position that the entire resolution is ambiguous and needs further study. Seamons said his group is willing to work with the city on ways to meet health care access objectives.....

Cohn said the principles could also come into play when the City Council examines a proposal by Mercy General Hospital to build a heart center and parking project in east Sacramento. Neighbors have said that the project is too large and creates too much traffic. An adjacent school opposes the project, saying it poses a health risk and nuisance. Mary Beth Teselle, a Mercy spokeswoman, said "it was too early to speculate what (the resolution) could mean" for its planned project and declined further comment.

Other principles included in the resolution call for hospitals to: maintain fair pricing guidelines, meet minimum quality care standards and provide an adequate level of care for residents in all neighborhoods as well as charity care. It also requires reasonable collection practices when patients are unable to pay their bills and says hospitals must agree to hold community meetings to discuss uses for abandoned hospital sites. An oversight committee would ensure compliance.

Harold Lawrence, president of Sacramento Area Congregations Together and a member of the coalition said the group will push the council to enact a stricter ordinance - not a simple resolution - that will "shine the light" on the way any nonprofit hospital does business. "That's the only way you're going to bring these entities to the table with the folks that really need health care services in the community," Lawrence said. "Finally we'll get them to answer things that they're very reluctant to talk about."

More here

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Page is here or here.

***************************