While Good Samaritan warns San Jose officials against delaying approval of its latest hospital, a newly released construction schedule revealed the ability may not open in time to interchange the present hospital, which can meet the state's seismic requirements in 2030 now not meeting will place greater strain on local health services.
The Good Samaritan campus – owned by HCA Healthcare – is currently going through the rezoning approval process.
Good Samaritan CEO Patrick Rohan revealed at a committee meeting Wednesday that the hospital is already behind schedule as he seeks to have the City Council consider the corporate's rezoning application on Nov. 19.
“The first phase of the project alone will take six years, meaning any delay will jeopardize state-mandated seismic schedules and the hospital’s ability to remain open,” Rohan said. “The postponement of the decision is not just a delay. It effectively ensures that a vital community hospital will be closed and this area of San Jose will be left without access to acute care.”
Under California law, all older hospitals that provide acute care beds, meaning beds for patients who need around-the-clock medical care, must meet seismic requirements by the tip of this decade. Good Samaritan officials warned that the state could revoke its facility's license by that date without retrofitting or replacing the present hospital.
To avoid disruption to patient care, the healthcare provider intends to proceed operating the present hospital while it builds the brand new facilities, which include a parking garage and a central power plant.
Rohan estimated the project will cost $1.2 billion. Since the brand new hospital will sit in the present car parking zone, Rohan said Good Samaritan will construct the parking garage first, which he estimated would take 12 to 14 months. The power plant would follow an analogous schedule before construction of the hospital begins.
Although Kaiser Permanente Hospital in San Jose goes through the identical process the town approved last month, HCA and Good Samaritan faced a way more difficult path.
Last month, the town's Planning Commission really helpful that the City Council reject the hospital's plan as several commissioners criticized HCA for its past business practices that they said put “profits over people.”
At the center of their dissatisfaction were Good Samaritan's decision to now not offer acute psychiatric beds and HCA's plan to downgrade the trauma unit at East San Jose Regional Medical Center before the county purchased the hospital and restored services.
Nursing staff also questioned how HCA would have the opportunity to offer effective patient care with the brand new facility when the present hospital cannot provide adequate staffing.
HCA called the Planning Commission's decisions arbitrary and illegal in a transient filed by its attorneys at Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP.
The hatred toward the Good Samaritan and the HCA continued Wednesday when District 5 Councilman Peter Ortiz requested a postponement to get more feedback from the community, adding that the town “rewards bad actors or holds them accountable.” “can pull”.
“Our general plan holds the city accountable for ensuring our health resources are planned with equity in mind and that everyone has access to services,” Ortiz said. “We as council members have this responsibility.”
Jaria Jaug, associate director of nursing policy at Working Partnerships USA, said stakeholders need to be on the table negotiating a patient protection fund with community oversight to revive psychiatric care on the hospital and forestall future divestitures.
“The city is committed to helping address the homelessness and mental health crisis,” Jaug said. “Companies that are exacerbating these crises should give back to the community and help solve the problems we face. HCA has a reputation for divesting wherever it is not profitable, even at the expense of the community and mental health care.”
sixth District Councilmember Dev Davis also got right into a tense dialogue with Rohan after she repeatedly asked him what happens to individuals who need acute mental health care and received no response.
“I’m not just for preserving, protecting and expanding medical services,” Davis said. “I think you need to restore health care, particularly the very urgent mental health needs that we have in this county and this community. I think it’s horrible that you closed your mental health facilities and you have another chance.”
However, ninth District Councilwoman Pam Foley, who represents the world where the hospital is situated, declined to support the postponement request, citing concerns concerning the negative impact delays could have on the community.
Foley said her office has provided significant community engagement beyond the necessities outlined in city policy and is in energetic negotiations with HCA to create greater community advantages.
“It bothers me a little that my office, in coordination with city staff and the Good Samaritan, did not do our due diligence regarding outreach and community engagement,” she said.
The Good Samaritan didn’t reply to questions from The Mercury News about its plans and the impact on services if the brand new hospital just isn’t operational by January 1, 2030.
Instead, the hospital continued to attract attention to the devastating impact of delaying its approval.
“Good Samaritan Hospital has been a faithful steward of the San Jose planning process and has extensively communicated the benefits and impacts of our $1.2 billion proposal and state-mandated seismic retrofit,” Good Samaritan Hospital said in an announcement. “We incorporated this feedback into the plan presented to the city council. Any delay in our proposal assuming more feedback is needed jeopardizes the state’s enormous legal deadlines and jeopardizes the hospital’s ability to remain operational.”
Originally published:
image credit : www.mercurynews.com