2 hospitals got millions, spent little on charity
Heather Knight, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
San Francisco's five nonprofit hospitals received $79 million last year in tax breaks intended to compensate them for providing free care to the city's poor and uninsured, but they spent just $16 million on charity care, according to a new city report.
California Pacific Medical Center, with campuses in Laurel Heights, Pacific Heights and the Castro, was responsible for the vast majority of the disparity, the report by the city Department of Public Health said. California Pacific received close to $70 million in tax breaks - $67 million in state and federal income tax exemptions and $2.8 million in local property tax exemptions - while spending $5.2 million on charity care, the report said.
The Health Department has tracked spending on charity care by the five nonprofit, acute-care hospitals in San Francisco annually since 2001. The city has a vested interest in seeing those hospitals provide more charity care because that takes pressure off San Francisco General Hospital.
The city's public hospital treated 81,000 charity patients last year, compared with 16,000 for the five nonprofit hospitals combined, the report said. San Francisco spends more than $100 million a year caring for the uninsured, according to the Public Health Department.
The other hospital receiving more in tax breaks than it spent on charity care last year was Chinese Hospital, where the difference amounted to about $3.8 million, the report said. St. Luke's Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital and St. Francis Medical Center all received less in tax breaks than they spent on charity care, according to the report.
Kevin McCormack, California Pacific spokesman, countered that the hospital's three campuses are located in wealthy neighborhoods where poor and uninsured people aren't likely to seek treatment. "Those neighborhoods are not ones where you have a large low-income community," McCormack said. "We still have the responsibility, but ... it's not asked of us as much."
He also noted that the report has a strict definition of charity care, which doesn't include programs such as California Pacific's new low-cost health center for children in Bayview-Hunters Point and its breast cancer prevention program for African American women that offers free annual mammograms.
In addition, nonprofit hospitals aren't compensated by the federal government for treating Medi-Cal patients at the same rates public hospitals are compensated, McCormack said.
When all those other factors are taken into account, California Pacific Medical Center still fell $4.6 million short on spending compared to its tax benefits, according to the Health Department report. It was the only nonprofit hospital in the city that fell short even when various community benefits and the Medi-Cal shortfall were included.
Supervisor Tom Ammiano said hospitals have tried to spin the numbers for as long as the city has required the charity report. "This has been an uphill battle," he said. "It looks like the bottom line triumphs and that charity care is an orphan, and I hope that changes." He said the report shows that the supervisors and the mayor must call on the hospitals to do more, especially as the city tries to expand its groundbreaking Healthy San Francisco plan to provide health care to the city's 73,000 uninsured residents.
That care is now being provided at 27 clinics and San Francisco General Hospital, but public health officials say they hope to bring other hospitals on board.
Ammiano noted that officials have leverage over California Pacific because the nonprofit needs City Hall's approval for a $1.7 billion hospital it has proposed for the site of the Cathedral Hill Hotel at Van Ness Avenue and Geary Boulevard. California Pacific backtracked on plans to limit services at St. Luke's Hospital in the Mission District after supervisors objected.
St. Luke's was broken out separately in the charity care report because California Pacific did not own it until last year. The report showed that St. Luke's received $630,000 in tax benefits and spent $2.5 million on charity care.
St. Francis Medical Center on Nob Hill received $1.1 million in tax benefits and spent $4.1 million on charity care, the report said. St. Mary's Hospital near the eastern edge of Golden Gate Park received $3.2 million in tax benefits and spent $3.5 million on charity care, according to the report. Chinese Hospital in Chinatown, on the other hand, got more than $4 million in tax breaks and spent $265,000 on charity care, the report said.
The Health Department did not examine Kaiser because its members have to prepay to participate, and UCSF was omitted because the city and county don't have any authority over it. Laguna Honda Hospital and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center also weren't included because they target specific populations, not the general public.
Alicia Neumann, senior planner for the Health Department and author of the report, said one of the best indicators of whether a nonprofit hospital is pulling its weight is the percentage of its budget spent on caring for the poor.
St. Francis performed best on that measure, spending 2.9 percent of its budget on charity care. California Pacific spent 0.7 percent and Chinese Hospital spent 0.6 percent, according to the report.
E-mail Heather Knight at hknight@sfchronicle.com.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Sutter, medical center and SF city officials agree to study St. Luke's
Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 3:08 PM PST
Sacramento Business Journal - by Chris Rauber Staff writer
San Francisco city officials and hospital giant Sutter Health and its California Pacific Medical Center -- which run St. Luke's Hospital -- have agreed to create a panel to help "determine the future" of the troubled safety-net hospital by this June, according to CPMC and the city.
Two powerful labor unions are being invited to participate. [SEIU, CNA]
Sutter Health is based in Sacramento.
An e-mailed Jan. 23 statement from the medical center, San Francisco's largest private hospital, noted that the compromise came after months of speculation about St. Luke's fate.
Separately, San Francisco Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier released a statement announcing she and San Francisco Department of Public Health head Mitch Katz had reached an agreement with CPMC on a process to "maintain" St. Luke's.
CPMC's statement used similar language, but indicated the new process would "determine the future of this fragile but vital health care institution," referring to St. Luke's.
Approximately 20 leaders in health care, business, community groups and labor, including the powerful California Nurses Association and the Service Employees International Union, will participate in a "blue ribbon panel" to develop a viable plan for St. Luke's, according to Alioto-Pier, Katz and CPMC.
Officials at California Pacific indicated the panel will review data about what services at St. Luke's are needed and what services are not, adding that it should complement and support CPMC's current institutional master plan.
"This is an important step in making sure that all voices in the community are heard," Alioto-Pier said in her Jan. 23 statement. "Maintaining and rebuilding St. Luke's and developing it into a first-class hospital for the Mission District and the Southeast section of San Francisco is my primary objective." Katz voiced support for a solution that meets the needs of the city, the community and CPMC.
Neither Alioto-Pier nor Katz gave any indication of what such a solution might be, but one possible compromise could involve the Public Health Department taking on ownership of St. Luke's. Another could involve CPMC and Sutter continuing to subsidize inpatient care at St. Luke's, in return for regulatory approval of expansion projects at Cathedral Hill and other CPMC medical campuses.
The panel is expected to complete its review by June, and to make recommendations at that time.
As part of the supervisor's press release, Martin Brotman, CPMC's president and chief executive officer, affirmed the hospital's commitment to St. Luke's and the community it serves, adding: "we are pleased to work with Supervisor Alioto-Pier and Dr. Katz in helping to secure the future of St. Luke's."
CPMC has argued that St. Luke's doesn't care for enough acute-care patients to justify its continued existence as a full-fledged hospital, and should be converted to an outpatient center. But that plan has run into severe political problems, and has stymied CPMC's broader plans to gain city approvals for its planned new $1.7 billion Cathedral Hill hospital campus on Van Ness Ave., and other expansion projects with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
"The panel will hopefully come up with something that meets the city's needs (including a safety-net alternative to San Francisco General Hospital) and CPMC's needs," said CPMC spokesman Kevin McCormack, including its need to build a new campus at Cathedral Hill.
Alioto-Pier has been active on the politically volatile issue for some time. In March of last year, she told the San Francisco Business Times the Cathedral Hill project "has to be done as a partnership" between California Pacific, neighborhood groups, labor and the city's political establishment. "California Pacific has to realize that (Cathedral Hill) is in no way a done deal," she said at the time. "Some projects in San Francisco don't go through. They have to be team players, or they're not going to make it."
Alioto-Pier could not be reached immediately for comment.
Shum Preston, a CNA spokesman, said the union has a number of questions about the process, "including whether CPMC is pledging to keep St. Luke's open. We strongly believe St. Luke's must remain open as an acute care center."
All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.
Sacramento Business Journal - by Chris Rauber Staff writer
San Francisco city officials and hospital giant Sutter Health and its California Pacific Medical Center -- which run St. Luke's Hospital -- have agreed to create a panel to help "determine the future" of the troubled safety-net hospital by this June, according to CPMC and the city.
Two powerful labor unions are being invited to participate. [SEIU, CNA]
Sutter Health is based in Sacramento.
An e-mailed Jan. 23 statement from the medical center, San Francisco's largest private hospital, noted that the compromise came after months of speculation about St. Luke's fate.
Separately, San Francisco Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier released a statement announcing she and San Francisco Department of Public Health head Mitch Katz had reached an agreement with CPMC on a process to "maintain" St. Luke's.
CPMC's statement used similar language, but indicated the new process would "determine the future of this fragile but vital health care institution," referring to St. Luke's.
Approximately 20 leaders in health care, business, community groups and labor, including the powerful California Nurses Association and the Service Employees International Union, will participate in a "blue ribbon panel" to develop a viable plan for St. Luke's, according to Alioto-Pier, Katz and CPMC.
Officials at California Pacific indicated the panel will review data about what services at St. Luke's are needed and what services are not, adding that it should complement and support CPMC's current institutional master plan.
"This is an important step in making sure that all voices in the community are heard," Alioto-Pier said in her Jan. 23 statement. "Maintaining and rebuilding St. Luke's and developing it into a first-class hospital for the Mission District and the Southeast section of San Francisco is my primary objective." Katz voiced support for a solution that meets the needs of the city, the community and CPMC.
Neither Alioto-Pier nor Katz gave any indication of what such a solution might be, but one possible compromise could involve the Public Health Department taking on ownership of St. Luke's. Another could involve CPMC and Sutter continuing to subsidize inpatient care at St. Luke's, in return for regulatory approval of expansion projects at Cathedral Hill and other CPMC medical campuses.
The panel is expected to complete its review by June, and to make recommendations at that time.
As part of the supervisor's press release, Martin Brotman, CPMC's president and chief executive officer, affirmed the hospital's commitment to St. Luke's and the community it serves, adding: "we are pleased to work with Supervisor Alioto-Pier and Dr. Katz in helping to secure the future of St. Luke's."
CPMC has argued that St. Luke's doesn't care for enough acute-care patients to justify its continued existence as a full-fledged hospital, and should be converted to an outpatient center. But that plan has run into severe political problems, and has stymied CPMC's broader plans to gain city approvals for its planned new $1.7 billion Cathedral Hill hospital campus on Van Ness Ave., and other expansion projects with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
"The panel will hopefully come up with something that meets the city's needs (including a safety-net alternative to San Francisco General Hospital) and CPMC's needs," said CPMC spokesman Kevin McCormack, including its need to build a new campus at Cathedral Hill.
Alioto-Pier has been active on the politically volatile issue for some time. In March of last year, she told the San Francisco Business Times the Cathedral Hill project "has to be done as a partnership" between California Pacific, neighborhood groups, labor and the city's political establishment. "California Pacific has to realize that (Cathedral Hill) is in no way a done deal," she said at the time. "Some projects in San Francisco don't go through. They have to be team players, or they're not going to make it."
Alioto-Pier could not be reached immediately for comment.
Shum Preston, a CNA spokesman, said the union has a number of questions about the process, "including whether CPMC is pledging to keep St. Luke's open. We strongly believe St. Luke's must remain open as an acute care center."
All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.
City tries to stop hospital from flatlining
City officials have put forth a proposal to keep St. Luke’s from closing or downgrading.
John Upton, The Examiner
2008-01-24
SAN FRANCISCO -
City officials would be instructed to take strong action to stop St. Luke’s Hospital from closing or downgrading its services in the Mission district, under a proposal to be considered today.
St. Luke’s owner, California Pacific Medical Center, a part of Sutter Health, announced in October that, due to financial reasons, it would stop providing emergency care at St. Luke’s. The hospital, which has operated since 1912 [error 1871] treats a high proportion of low-income patients. Of its emergency care patients, 40 percent are Hispanic and 18 percent are black, according to a city report.
On Wednesday, nearly 100 St. Luke’s doctors, nurses and other employees spilled out of the hospital’s brick building and into a parking lot to cheer an announcement by Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier that a “blue ribbon panel” of CPMC executives, and union and government representatives, would plan the future of the hospital.
CPMC president Dr. Martin Brotman wore a large “Save St. Luke’s” badge as he addressed the crowd.
“Something that is desperately needed in this city,” Brotman told the crowd, “is an open, honest planning process that has only one focus — to make sure that we provide the best possible health care.”
After the public announcement, Brotman told The Examiner the company could not commit to keeping the hospital or its acute-care facilities open after 2009.
“Nothing is off the table,” he said. “If you’re going to have an honest process, you have to have all possibilities on the table — and all possibilities are on the table.”
Today a Board of Supervisors committee will consider a resolution authored by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi that, if passed by the full board, would instruct city departments to identify any pending applications that would help CPMC close or downgrade the hospital. The resolution would instruct the city attorney to then investigate the company’s requests and take legal action to try and prevent the closures.
jupton@examiner.com
John Upton, The Examiner
2008-01-24
SAN FRANCISCO -
City officials would be instructed to take strong action to stop St. Luke’s Hospital from closing or downgrading its services in the Mission district, under a proposal to be considered today.
St. Luke’s owner, California Pacific Medical Center, a part of Sutter Health, announced in October that, due to financial reasons, it would stop providing emergency care at St. Luke’s. The hospital, which has operated since 1912 [error 1871] treats a high proportion of low-income patients. Of its emergency care patients, 40 percent are Hispanic and 18 percent are black, according to a city report.
On Wednesday, nearly 100 St. Luke’s doctors, nurses and other employees spilled out of the hospital’s brick building and into a parking lot to cheer an announcement by Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier that a “blue ribbon panel” of CPMC executives, and union and government representatives, would plan the future of the hospital.
CPMC president Dr. Martin Brotman wore a large “Save St. Luke’s” badge as he addressed the crowd.
“Something that is desperately needed in this city,” Brotman told the crowd, “is an open, honest planning process that has only one focus — to make sure that we provide the best possible health care.”
After the public announcement, Brotman told The Examiner the company could not commit to keeping the hospital or its acute-care facilities open after 2009.
“Nothing is off the table,” he said. “If you’re going to have an honest process, you have to have all possibilities on the table — and all possibilities are on the table.”
Today a Board of Supervisors committee will consider a resolution authored by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi that, if passed by the full board, would instruct city departments to identify any pending applications that would help CPMC close or downgrade the hospital. The resolution would instruct the city attorney to then investigate the company’s requests and take legal action to try and prevent the closures.
jupton@examiner.com
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Community Rallies Against Hospital Closure
Coalition to Save St. Luke’s Hospital
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: James Keys
January 24, 2008 (415) 546-1335
Community Rallies Against Hospital Closure
SAN FRANCISCO – A coalition of community groups and healthcare advocates on Thursday broadly condemned Sutter Health’s plans to shut down St. Luke’s Hospital.
At a press conference prior to a Board of Supervisors committee meeting on the issue, representatives from several community groups spoke out against the proposal because of the devastating effect it would have on public health in San Francisco.
“We call on Sutter Health to honor its promises to the community and keep St. Luke’s Hospital open,” said state Sen. Carole Migden. “It’s vital to thousands of low-income residents and people of color in the Mission and surrounding communities. These are underserved communities who will suffer disproportionately by this draconian measure. Sutter Health—keep St. Luke’s open.”
Michael Lyon, member of Gray Panthers and Senior Action Network says "I’ve lived in Bernal Heights for 35 years and worked at San Francisco General Hospital for 15 years and I can tell you closing St. Luke's would leave South-East San Francisco, low-income, largely minority, and already without sufficient medical facilities, with only SF General, which is already over-crowded. Many of us do not have the money or stamina to trek across town, only to face cultural, linguistic, and class barriers to adequate care."
Several community groups came together to form a coalition last year after Sutter announced its plans to close St. Luke’s. The proposal would have a negative impact on public health, particularly in the low-income and minority communities most served by this hospital.
Latino and black patients accounted for 54 percent of the 23,000 emergency visits to St. Luke’s in 2005. By comparison, only 8 percent of patients at Sutter’s California Pacific Medical Center facilities across town—none of which are threatened with closure—are Latino or black.
Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has proposed a resolution to formally oppose Sutter’s plan to close St. Luke’s, citing Sutter’s abandonment of “medically underserved” neighborhoods while “expanding hospital access for insured, middle-, and upper-income, non-Hispanic, largely non-African American residents.”
The committee also will review cuts already made by Sutter at St. Luke’s, including the closure of a medical/surgical floor.
In the event of rain, the press conference will be moved into the North Light Court of San Francisco’s Historic City Hall.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: James Keys
January 24, 2008 (415) 546-1335
Community Rallies Against Hospital Closure
SAN FRANCISCO – A coalition of community groups and healthcare advocates on Thursday broadly condemned Sutter Health’s plans to shut down St. Luke’s Hospital.
At a press conference prior to a Board of Supervisors committee meeting on the issue, representatives from several community groups spoke out against the proposal because of the devastating effect it would have on public health in San Francisco.
“We call on Sutter Health to honor its promises to the community and keep St. Luke’s Hospital open,” said state Sen. Carole Migden. “It’s vital to thousands of low-income residents and people of color in the Mission and surrounding communities. These are underserved communities who will suffer disproportionately by this draconian measure. Sutter Health—keep St. Luke’s open.”
Michael Lyon, member of Gray Panthers and Senior Action Network says "I’ve lived in Bernal Heights for 35 years and worked at San Francisco General Hospital for 15 years and I can tell you closing St. Luke's would leave South-East San Francisco, low-income, largely minority, and already without sufficient medical facilities, with only SF General, which is already over-crowded. Many of us do not have the money or stamina to trek across town, only to face cultural, linguistic, and class barriers to adequate care."
Several community groups came together to form a coalition last year after Sutter announced its plans to close St. Luke’s. The proposal would have a negative impact on public health, particularly in the low-income and minority communities most served by this hospital.
Latino and black patients accounted for 54 percent of the 23,000 emergency visits to St. Luke’s in 2005. By comparison, only 8 percent of patients at Sutter’s California Pacific Medical Center facilities across town—none of which are threatened with closure—are Latino or black.
Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has proposed a resolution to formally oppose Sutter’s plan to close St. Luke’s, citing Sutter’s abandonment of “medically underserved” neighborhoods while “expanding hospital access for insured, middle-, and upper-income, non-Hispanic, largely non-African American residents.”
The committee also will review cuts already made by Sutter at St. Luke’s, including the closure of a medical/surgical floor.
In the event of rain, the press conference will be moved into the North Light Court of San Francisco’s Historic City Hall.
Friday, January 25, 2008
United Healthcare Workers Skeptical of Planning Process for St. Luke's
Press Release January 24, 2008
Healthcare workers skeptical of planning process for St. Luke's UHW praises city officials' efforts, questions Sutter's intentions
SAN FRANCISCO - Sal Rosselli, President of SEIU United Healthcare Workers - West (UHW), representing 1,200 caregivers employed by CPMC and St. Luke's Hospital, today expressed serious doubts about the "Blue Ribbon Panel" announced by hospital management with the participation of city officials to develop a plan for the future of St. Luke's Hospital. His statement is below:
"We applaud city officials' efforts to keep St. Luke's open, but experience has taught us to be skeptical that any process convened by Sutter Health Corporation's California Pacific Medical Center will yield a plan that meets the healthcare needs of San Franciscans instead of padding their bottom line.
For years, doctors, nurses, caregivers, elected officials, patients and community leaders have asked Sutter officials to commit to save St. Luke's, and they've hedged and dodged the entire time, changing their position over and over again. Now, they've been dragged to the table kicking and screaming, but they still can't say plainly that they're committing to keep St. Luke's open as a full service, acute care hospital.
Sutter could save St. Luke's today by signing a legally binding memorandum of agreement to keep the hospital open and fully functioning. The Sutter Corporation reported $587 million in profits last year alone. They have more than enough funds to maintain and improve the hospital. The question is whether or not they have the will to protect the health of San Franciscans by keeping St. Luke's open.
Fundamentally, we believe San Francisco would be better served by an open and accountable public process to determine the city's healthcare needs and ensure that all of Sutter's reorganization plans meet them in order to win city approvaL"
The 150,OOO-member SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West is the largest hospital and healthcare union in the western United States and represents every type of healthcare worker, including nurses, professional, technical and service classifications. Our mission is to achieve high-quality healthcare for all.
Healthcare workers skeptical of planning process for St. Luke's UHW praises city officials' efforts, questions Sutter's intentions
SAN FRANCISCO - Sal Rosselli, President of SEIU United Healthcare Workers - West (UHW), representing 1,200 caregivers employed by CPMC and St. Luke's Hospital, today expressed serious doubts about the "Blue Ribbon Panel" announced by hospital management with the participation of city officials to develop a plan for the future of St. Luke's Hospital. His statement is below:
"We applaud city officials' efforts to keep St. Luke's open, but experience has taught us to be skeptical that any process convened by Sutter Health Corporation's California Pacific Medical Center will yield a plan that meets the healthcare needs of San Franciscans instead of padding their bottom line.
For years, doctors, nurses, caregivers, elected officials, patients and community leaders have asked Sutter officials to commit to save St. Luke's, and they've hedged and dodged the entire time, changing their position over and over again. Now, they've been dragged to the table kicking and screaming, but they still can't say plainly that they're committing to keep St. Luke's open as a full service, acute care hospital.
Sutter could save St. Luke's today by signing a legally binding memorandum of agreement to keep the hospital open and fully functioning. The Sutter Corporation reported $587 million in profits last year alone. They have more than enough funds to maintain and improve the hospital. The question is whether or not they have the will to protect the health of San Franciscans by keeping St. Luke's open.
Fundamentally, we believe San Francisco would be better served by an open and accountable public process to determine the city's healthcare needs and ensure that all of Sutter's reorganization plans meet them in order to win city approvaL"
The 150,OOO-member SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West is the largest hospital and healthcare union in the western United States and represents every type of healthcare worker, including nurses, professional, technical and service classifications. Our mission is to achieve high-quality healthcare for all.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Blue Ribbon Panel Being Formed to Save St. Luke's: Press Conference 11 AM January 23
Dear Doctors:
Supervisor Alioto-Pier and Dr. Mitch Katz will host a press conference tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. in front of St. Luke's Hospital. The pressc onference will outline the creation of a Blue Ribbon Panel with the goal to keep St. Luke's open as a viable acute care hospital.
Both the Supervisor and Dr. Katz have reached an agreement with CPMC on a process to maintain St. Luke's. Key leaders in health care, such as yourselves, as well as business, community and labor leaders (including CNA and SEIU) will be invited to participate in the Blue Ribbon Panel to develop a plan to basically save St. Luke's.
More will be revealed at the press conference tomorrow but we wanted to inform you as soon as we could. We are hopeful that this is a very positive step in the right direction. Both Supervisor Alioto-Pier and Dr.Katz will participate in the Panel and remain adamant that the goal of the panel must be a viable hospital with an emergency department, acute cares ervices and anything else that will infuse vitality into St. Luke's.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me on my cell phone at 925-285-6041 or my direct line at 554-7720. I hope to see you tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Catherine Stefani
Legislative Aide
Office of Supervisor Alioto-Pier
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 224
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Phone: (415) 554-7752 Fax: (415)554-7843
Supervisor Alioto-Pier and Dr. Mitch Katz will host a press conference tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. in front of St. Luke's Hospital. The pressc onference will outline the creation of a Blue Ribbon Panel with the goal to keep St. Luke's open as a viable acute care hospital.
Both the Supervisor and Dr. Katz have reached an agreement with CPMC on a process to maintain St. Luke's. Key leaders in health care, such as yourselves, as well as business, community and labor leaders (including CNA and SEIU) will be invited to participate in the Blue Ribbon Panel to develop a plan to basically save St. Luke's.
More will be revealed at the press conference tomorrow but we wanted to inform you as soon as we could. We are hopeful that this is a very positive step in the right direction. Both Supervisor Alioto-Pier and Dr.Katz will participate in the Panel and remain adamant that the goal of the panel must be a viable hospital with an emergency department, acute cares ervices and anything else that will infuse vitality into St. Luke's.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me on my cell phone at 925-285-6041 or my direct line at 554-7720. I hope to see you tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Catherine Stefani
Legislative Aide
Office of Supervisor Alioto-Pier
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 224
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Phone: (415) 554-7752 Fax: (415)554-7843
Friday, January 11, 2008
Supervisors Proposed Resolution Asks City Attorney to Investigate Sutter Business Practices for Possible Legal Action
Supervisors Mirkarimi, Ammiano, and Maxwell Resolution opposing closure of St. Luke's to be debated in a public hearing January 24, 1 PM before the City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee..........
[Resolution opposing closure of St. Luke’s Hospital]
Resolution opposing the plans of Sutter Health to cease operations at St. Luke’s Hospital, requesting City Departments to identify pending applications sought in furtherance of such closure and report such applications; and requesting the City Attorney to investigate the actions taken by Sutter Health and initiate proceedings, if warranted, under relevant statutes.
WHEREAS, St. Luke’s Hospital (“SLH”) is a full-service 260-bed licensed acute care hospital with more than 1,400 employees that has served the lower Mission and South of Market neighborhoods of San Francisco since 1912; and
WHEREAS, the southeastern San Francisco neighborhoods served by SLH have been designated by the federal government as Medically Underserved Areas since 1982; and,
WHEREAS, SLH affiliated with Sutter Health in 2001 and became a component of the Sutter Health integrated health care service delivery system in Northern California, which includes California Pacific Medical Center (“CPMC”) in San Francisco; and,
WHEREAS, Sutter obtained a formal affiliation agreement between SLH and CPMC in 2005 which enabled Sutter Health to consolidate all of its acute hospital care operations and facilities in San Francisco under a single CPMC license (consisting of SLH [3555 Cesar Chavez St.]; CPMC-California East [3773 Sacramento St.]; CPMC-California West [3700 California Street]; CPMC-Davies Campus [Castro and Duboce Streets]; and CPMC-Pacific [2333 Buchanan St.]); and,
WHEREAS, of the five Sutter acute hospital care facilities operating in San Francisco, only SLH provides services to Medically Underserved Areas designated by the federal government; and,
WHEREAS, during 2006-2007, the patients receiving acute hospital care services from SLH were 39.56% Hispanic and 17.82% African American, while those receiving inpatient hospital services from the other four acute care facilities operating under the CPMC license in San Francisco were less than 1% Hispanic and only 6.41% African American; and,
WHEREAS, during the period of January, 2005 through June, 2005, the five acute hospital care facilities operating in San Francisco under the CPMC license had a total of 32,259 emergency room visits, 40.45% (13,049) of which were visits to the SLH emergency room; and of the total visits to the SLH emergency room, 28.01% were Hispanic and 26.16% African American while the total emergency room visits to the other four CPMC acute care facilities during this same period were less than one-tenth of one percent and only 8.2% African American; and ,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors found, in Resolution No. 328-04, file no. 040607 adopted May 18, 2004 which is incorporated by this reference, that notwithstanding the “non-profit” status of its hospitals and self-promotion as a charitable enterprise, the business practices of Sutter Health/CPMC in San Francisco discriminate against and severely disadvantage uninsured and low-income people and medically underserved communities, finding, among other things, that:
(1) CPMC and other Sutter hospitals “have practiced aggressive debt collection tactics against uninsured patients who are unable to pay their bills, routinely sending uninsured patients’ bills to collection agencies that sue uninsured patients and seize funds from patients bank accounts, among other actions;”
(2) “Sutter Health’s discriminatory pricing and aggressive collection practices have been systematic and widespread, involving hundreds of uninsured patients each year;” and
(3) “Sutter Health’s practices have harmful effects on the City’s public health system and exacerbate the city’s fiscal crisis by forcing uninsured residents to seek care at public facilities.”; and,
WHEREAS, the public record of Sutter business practices and actions related to its acute care operations in San Francisco and recent events and admissions of Sutter officials specifically concerning the future of acute care operations at St. Luke’s Hospital have revealed Sutter’s implementation of an aggressive plan to generate excessive revenue and capture a greater share of profitable health care service markets in San Francisco by abandoning services provided to uninsured people, Hispanic and African American residents, and medically underserved neighborhoods in San Francisco and expanding hospital operations for access by insured, middle and upper income, non-Hispanic, largely non-African American residents of San Francisco neighbors that already enjoy a significant surplus of readily available and accessible medical and hospital services; and
WHEREAS, Key elements of Sutter’s plan include: (1) construction of a new Cathedral Hill acute care facility on Van Ness Avenue to be operated under CPMC license; (2) deliberate, staged dismantling of SLH hospital operations through transfers of selected services over time to other CPMC facilities; (3) complete and final termination of SLH acute care services by default in 2013 when closure of the hospital will be required by law due to Sutter’s failure to retrofit or rebuild the facility to meet seismic safety standards; and (4) relocation of SLH remaining services to other CPMC facilities, including the new Cathedral Hill facility; and,
WHEREAS, the Office of the Legislative Analyst for the City and County of San Francisco concluded in a report issued in August 2006, that the Sutter business plan actions described above “would remove a critical health care component from southeast San Francisco, which the federal government designated as a Medically Underserved Area.” (Legislative Analyst Report, GAO Item #2: SB 1953 – Hospital Seismic Retrofits and St. Luke’s Hospital [OLA No. 032-06], August 9, 2006, p. 1-2.) The LAO recommended in its August 2006 report that the Board of Supervisors take certain necessary and appropriate actions to delay implementation of Sutter’s plans to relocate and abandon acute care operations in southeastern San Francisco “until an adequate plan is put in place to serve this medically-underserved community.” (Id. at p. 9); and,
WHEREAS, the voters of the City and County of San Francisco have adopted amendments to the Charter creating the Health Commission and authorizing other actions to protect the health of the people of this City, and have found and declared that “elimination or curtailment of health services by private hospitals and clinics in this community may have a detrimental effect on the health and well-being of this community,” establishing grounds for adoption on November 8, 1988 of the Community Health Care Planning Ordinance, in which APPENDIX 17: Health Care Community Service, Sec. II, provides in pertinent part:
“Prior to closing a hospital inpatient or outpatient facility, eliminating or reducing the level of services provided, or prior to the leasing, selling or transfer of management, the hospital shall provide public notice, including notice posted at the entrance to the facility or facilities affected and mailed to the San Francisco Health Commission, of their intention. Such notice shall be posted and mailed not less than 90 days prior to the intended date of the action. The notice shall contain a detailed list of the proposed reductions or changes and the number of patients and employees affected by facility and service. The commission shall make findings based on evidence and testimony from public hearings that the proposed action will or will not have a detrimental impact on the health care service of the community. The commission shall further explore in these public hearings what alternative means are available in the community to provide the service or services to be eliminated or curtailed.”
WHEREAS, in complete disregard for the health and safety of the people of San Francisco and willful violation of the above-cited City Code provisions, Sutter attempted to proceed with implementation of its plan to wholly abandon and relocate SLH acute care operations by closing and relocating SLH pediatric and infant intensive care services on November 18, 2007, without public notice, opportunity for public comment and debate, or due consideration, report and recommendation by the Health Commission as required by the above-cited Code provisions; and,
WHEREAS, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b).) provides in part that:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
WHEREAS, the City Attorney is authorized by Section 17204 of the California Business and Professions Code to institute and prosecute civil actions for appropriate equitable and legal relief against any “person” (including profit and non-profit corporations, joint ventures, partnerships, and other business arrangements) for engaging in any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising . . .” (as defined in Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200); and
WHEREAS, the deliberate medical redlining plan of Sutter Health to generate excessive revenue and capture a greater share of profitable health care service markets in San Francisco by abandoning services provided to uninsured people, Hispanic and African American residents, and medically underserved neighborhoods in San Francisco and expanding hospital operations for access by insured, middle and upper income, non-Hispanic, largely non-African American residents of San Francisco neighborhoods that already enjoy a significant surplus of readily available and accessible medical and hospital services is a disgraceful and contemptible attack on our community as a whole and present a clear and present danger to the public health and safety of the people of San Francisco; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors calls upon Sutter Health to immediately cease and desist all actions in furtherance of any and all plans to close St. Luke’s Hospital and abandon its plans to discontinue the provision of acute care hospital services in southeast San Francisco; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That all City Departments immediately identify and report to the Board of Supervisors any and all existing and future formal or informal requests by Sutter for permits, approvals, authorizations, sanctions, or other official actions allowing, supporting, and/or having the effect of assisting implementation or otherwise furthering Sutter’s plans to discontinue the provision of acute care hospital services in southeast San Francisco; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco hereby requests the City Attorney to investigate the business practices of Sutter Health for possible action under applicable law.
[Resolution opposing closure of St. Luke’s Hospital]
Resolution opposing the plans of Sutter Health to cease operations at St. Luke’s Hospital, requesting City Departments to identify pending applications sought in furtherance of such closure and report such applications; and requesting the City Attorney to investigate the actions taken by Sutter Health and initiate proceedings, if warranted, under relevant statutes.
WHEREAS, St. Luke’s Hospital (“SLH”) is a full-service 260-bed licensed acute care hospital with more than 1,400 employees that has served the lower Mission and South of Market neighborhoods of San Francisco since 1912; and
WHEREAS, the southeastern San Francisco neighborhoods served by SLH have been designated by the federal government as Medically Underserved Areas since 1982; and,
WHEREAS, SLH affiliated with Sutter Health in 2001 and became a component of the Sutter Health integrated health care service delivery system in Northern California, which includes California Pacific Medical Center (“CPMC”) in San Francisco; and,
WHEREAS, Sutter obtained a formal affiliation agreement between SLH and CPMC in 2005 which enabled Sutter Health to consolidate all of its acute hospital care operations and facilities in San Francisco under a single CPMC license (consisting of SLH [3555 Cesar Chavez St.]; CPMC-California East [3773 Sacramento St.]; CPMC-California West [3700 California Street]; CPMC-Davies Campus [Castro and Duboce Streets]; and CPMC-Pacific [2333 Buchanan St.]); and,
WHEREAS, of the five Sutter acute hospital care facilities operating in San Francisco, only SLH provides services to Medically Underserved Areas designated by the federal government; and,
WHEREAS, during 2006-2007, the patients receiving acute hospital care services from SLH were 39.56% Hispanic and 17.82% African American, while those receiving inpatient hospital services from the other four acute care facilities operating under the CPMC license in San Francisco were less than 1% Hispanic and only 6.41% African American; and,
WHEREAS, during the period of January, 2005 through June, 2005, the five acute hospital care facilities operating in San Francisco under the CPMC license had a total of 32,259 emergency room visits, 40.45% (13,049) of which were visits to the SLH emergency room; and of the total visits to the SLH emergency room, 28.01% were Hispanic and 26.16% African American while the total emergency room visits to the other four CPMC acute care facilities during this same period were less than one-tenth of one percent and only 8.2% African American; and ,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors found, in Resolution No. 328-04, file no. 040607 adopted May 18, 2004 which is incorporated by this reference, that notwithstanding the “non-profit” status of its hospitals and self-promotion as a charitable enterprise, the business practices of Sutter Health/CPMC in San Francisco discriminate against and severely disadvantage uninsured and low-income people and medically underserved communities, finding, among other things, that:
(1) CPMC and other Sutter hospitals “have practiced aggressive debt collection tactics against uninsured patients who are unable to pay their bills, routinely sending uninsured patients’ bills to collection agencies that sue uninsured patients and seize funds from patients bank accounts, among other actions;”
(2) “Sutter Health’s discriminatory pricing and aggressive collection practices have been systematic and widespread, involving hundreds of uninsured patients each year;” and
(3) “Sutter Health’s practices have harmful effects on the City’s public health system and exacerbate the city’s fiscal crisis by forcing uninsured residents to seek care at public facilities.”; and,
WHEREAS, the public record of Sutter business practices and actions related to its acute care operations in San Francisco and recent events and admissions of Sutter officials specifically concerning the future of acute care operations at St. Luke’s Hospital have revealed Sutter’s implementation of an aggressive plan to generate excessive revenue and capture a greater share of profitable health care service markets in San Francisco by abandoning services provided to uninsured people, Hispanic and African American residents, and medically underserved neighborhoods in San Francisco and expanding hospital operations for access by insured, middle and upper income, non-Hispanic, largely non-African American residents of San Francisco neighbors that already enjoy a significant surplus of readily available and accessible medical and hospital services; and
WHEREAS, Key elements of Sutter’s plan include: (1) construction of a new Cathedral Hill acute care facility on Van Ness Avenue to be operated under CPMC license; (2) deliberate, staged dismantling of SLH hospital operations through transfers of selected services over time to other CPMC facilities; (3) complete and final termination of SLH acute care services by default in 2013 when closure of the hospital will be required by law due to Sutter’s failure to retrofit or rebuild the facility to meet seismic safety standards; and (4) relocation of SLH remaining services to other CPMC facilities, including the new Cathedral Hill facility; and,
WHEREAS, the Office of the Legislative Analyst for the City and County of San Francisco concluded in a report issued in August 2006, that the Sutter business plan actions described above “would remove a critical health care component from southeast San Francisco, which the federal government designated as a Medically Underserved Area.” (Legislative Analyst Report, GAO Item #2: SB 1953 – Hospital Seismic Retrofits and St. Luke’s Hospital [OLA No. 032-06], August 9, 2006, p. 1-2.) The LAO recommended in its August 2006 report that the Board of Supervisors take certain necessary and appropriate actions to delay implementation of Sutter’s plans to relocate and abandon acute care operations in southeastern San Francisco “until an adequate plan is put in place to serve this medically-underserved community.” (Id. at p. 9); and,
WHEREAS, the voters of the City and County of San Francisco have adopted amendments to the Charter creating the Health Commission and authorizing other actions to protect the health of the people of this City, and have found and declared that “elimination or curtailment of health services by private hospitals and clinics in this community may have a detrimental effect on the health and well-being of this community,” establishing grounds for adoption on November 8, 1988 of the Community Health Care Planning Ordinance, in which APPENDIX 17: Health Care Community Service, Sec. II, provides in pertinent part:
“Prior to closing a hospital inpatient or outpatient facility, eliminating or reducing the level of services provided, or prior to the leasing, selling or transfer of management, the hospital shall provide public notice, including notice posted at the entrance to the facility or facilities affected and mailed to the San Francisco Health Commission, of their intention. Such notice shall be posted and mailed not less than 90 days prior to the intended date of the action. The notice shall contain a detailed list of the proposed reductions or changes and the number of patients and employees affected by facility and service. The commission shall make findings based on evidence and testimony from public hearings that the proposed action will or will not have a detrimental impact on the health care service of the community. The commission shall further explore in these public hearings what alternative means are available in the community to provide the service or services to be eliminated or curtailed.”
WHEREAS, in complete disregard for the health and safety of the people of San Francisco and willful violation of the above-cited City Code provisions, Sutter attempted to proceed with implementation of its plan to wholly abandon and relocate SLH acute care operations by closing and relocating SLH pediatric and infant intensive care services on November 18, 2007, without public notice, opportunity for public comment and debate, or due consideration, report and recommendation by the Health Commission as required by the above-cited Code provisions; and,
WHEREAS, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b).) provides in part that:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
WHEREAS, the City Attorney is authorized by Section 17204 of the California Business and Professions Code to institute and prosecute civil actions for appropriate equitable and legal relief against any “person” (including profit and non-profit corporations, joint ventures, partnerships, and other business arrangements) for engaging in any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising . . .” (as defined in Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200); and
WHEREAS, the deliberate medical redlining plan of Sutter Health to generate excessive revenue and capture a greater share of profitable health care service markets in San Francisco by abandoning services provided to uninsured people, Hispanic and African American residents, and medically underserved neighborhoods in San Francisco and expanding hospital operations for access by insured, middle and upper income, non-Hispanic, largely non-African American residents of San Francisco neighborhoods that already enjoy a significant surplus of readily available and accessible medical and hospital services is a disgraceful and contemptible attack on our community as a whole and present a clear and present danger to the public health and safety of the people of San Francisco; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors calls upon Sutter Health to immediately cease and desist all actions in furtherance of any and all plans to close St. Luke’s Hospital and abandon its plans to discontinue the provision of acute care hospital services in southeast San Francisco; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That all City Departments immediately identify and report to the Board of Supervisors any and all existing and future formal or informal requests by Sutter for permits, approvals, authorizations, sanctions, or other official actions allowing, supporting, and/or having the effect of assisting implementation or otherwise furthering Sutter’s plans to discontinue the provision of acute care hospital services in southeast San Francisco; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco hereby requests the City Attorney to investigate the business practices of Sutter Health for possible action under applicable law.
Coalition to Save St. Luke's Hospital: Community Organization Membership Grows
Dolores Street Community Services, Wendy Phillips, wemip@yahoo.com
Global Exchange, Ruben Garcia, ruben@igc.org
Open Hand & San Francisco Health Commissioner, Jim Illig, jillig@openhand.org
Homeless Prenatal Program, Sheena Savdharia, sheenasavdharia@homelessprenatal.org
Mission SRO Collaborative, Jorge Portillo, jorge@dscs.org
Network for Elders, Karen Fishkin, kfishkin@networkforelders.org
Parent Voices, Lourdes Alarconi, lrdsalar@aol.com
PODER, Oscar Grande, ogrande@podersf.org
ACORN, John Eller & Grace, caacornsfro@acorn.org
San Francisco Organizing Project, Claire Bohman, claire@sfop.org
Save St. Luke's, Bonita Ann Palmer MD, bonita.ann.palmer@sbcglobal.net
Senior Action Network, James Keyes, james@senioractionnetwork.org
St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church, Jan Adams, jan@janadams.com
St. Peter's Housing Committee, Lupe, lupe@comitedevivienda.org
SEIU United Healthcare West, Jason Friege, jfried@seiu-uhw.org
SEIU United Healthcare West, Profirio Quintano, porfirio31@yahoo.com
California Nurses Association, Guliana Milanese, gfmilanese@yahoo.com
California Nurses Association, Mary Michelucci, ir1mary@hotmail.com
California Nurses Association, Nato Green, ngreen@calnurses.org
California Nurses Association, Jane Sandoval, hysailor@aol.com
Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, Jane Martin, jmartin@bhnc.org
Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, Karen Garrison, kgarrison@bhnc.org
Bernal Preschool, Mauricio Vela, mauricioevela@aol.com
Greg Panthers, Michael Lyon, mlyon01@comcast.net, mlyono1@comcast.net
Family Physician, Mina Abazari, MD drminaabazari@yahoo.com
Gus Hernandez, gustavo.hdez@sbcglobal.net
CEC Holiday Committtee, Eva Royale, eroyale@earthlink.net
San Jose Guerrero Coalition, Gillian Gillett, gillett@graffio.net
1st Unitarian Universalist Society of SF, Brendan O'Brine, obrineb@uchastings.edu
Bay Area Organizing Committee, David Gardner, dkgardner@gmail.com
La Raza Centro Legal and the SF Day Labor Program, Renee Saucedo, renee@lrcl.org
__________________________________
Jane Martin
Community Organizer
Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
415-206-2140 x 155
Global Exchange, Ruben Garcia, ruben@igc.org
Open Hand & San Francisco Health Commissioner, Jim Illig, jillig@openhand.org
Homeless Prenatal Program, Sheena Savdharia, sheenasavdharia@homelessprenatal.org
Mission SRO Collaborative, Jorge Portillo, jorge@dscs.org
Network for Elders, Karen Fishkin, kfishkin@networkforelders.org
Parent Voices, Lourdes Alarconi, lrdsalar@aol.com
PODER, Oscar Grande, ogrande@podersf.org
ACORN, John Eller & Grace, caacornsfro@acorn.org
San Francisco Organizing Project, Claire Bohman, claire@sfop.org
Save St. Luke's, Bonita Ann Palmer MD, bonita.ann.palmer@sbcglobal.net
Senior Action Network, James Keyes, james@senioractionnetwork.org
St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church, Jan Adams, jan@janadams.com
St. Peter's Housing Committee, Lupe, lupe@comitedevivienda.org
SEIU United Healthcare West, Jason Friege, jfried@seiu-uhw.org
SEIU United Healthcare West, Profirio Quintano, porfirio31@yahoo.com
California Nurses Association, Guliana Milanese, gfmilanese@yahoo.com
California Nurses Association, Mary Michelucci, ir1mary@hotmail.com
California Nurses Association, Nato Green, ngreen@calnurses.org
California Nurses Association, Jane Sandoval, hysailor@aol.com
Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, Jane Martin, jmartin@bhnc.org
Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, Karen Garrison, kgarrison@bhnc.org
Bernal Preschool, Mauricio Vela, mauricioevela@aol.com
Greg Panthers, Michael Lyon, mlyon01@comcast.net, mlyono1@comcast.net
Family Physician, Mina Abazari, MD drminaabazari@yahoo.com
Gus Hernandez, gustavo.hdez@sbcglobal.net
CEC Holiday Committtee, Eva Royale, eroyale@earthlink.net
San Jose Guerrero Coalition, Gillian Gillett, gillett@graffio.net
1st Unitarian Universalist Society of SF, Brendan O'Brine, obrineb@uchastings.edu
Bay Area Organizing Committee, David Gardner, dkgardner@gmail.com
La Raza Centro Legal and the SF Day Labor Program, Renee Saucedo, renee@lrcl.org
__________________________________
Jane Martin
Community Organizer
Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
415-206-2140 x 155
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The Coalition to Save St. Luke's Organizes to Protest CPMC Cuts and Planned Closures
The Coalition to Save St. Luke's has been formed which includes community based organizations in the neighborhoods served by St. Luke's Hospital and unions representing St. Luke’s staff, along with doctors and nurses from the Save St. Luke's Campaign. The coalition includes organizations that serve the elderly, minority, at risk youth, low income, mentally ill, and homeless people...those who will suffer the most should CPMC's plan to end acute care services at its St. Luke's Campus by the end for 2009 be implemented.
At its second meeting held on January 7 attended by over 20 leaders from various community organizations, it launched a vigorous plan to protest and draw public attention to the plight of the beleaguered South of Market community hospital. Patients and community members are invited to attend the coalition’s next action on January 24th-
Rally and Press Conference
on the steps of San Francisco City Hall
Thursday, January 24th at Noon
This action will to coincide with the upcoming public hearing before the Operations and Neighborhood Services Services Committee of the Board of Supervisors.
The coalition is planning other public actions and outreach to educate patients and community members. If you represent a community-based organization or wish to volunteer to help in this effort, please contact Jane Martin, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center , 515 Cortland Ave , SF , CA 94110 . 415-206-2140 X155, or jmartin@bhnc.org to become part of the effort to Save St. Luke's.
At its second meeting held on January 7 attended by over 20 leaders from various community organizations, it launched a vigorous plan to protest and draw public attention to the plight of the beleaguered South of Market community hospital. Patients and community members are invited to attend the coalition’s next action on January 24th-
Rally and Press Conference
on the steps of San Francisco City Hall
Thursday, January 24th at Noon
This action will to coincide with the upcoming public hearing before the Operations and Neighborhood Services Services Committee of the Board of Supervisors.
The coalition is planning other public actions and outreach to educate patients and community members. If you represent a community-based organization or wish to volunteer to help in this effort, please contact Jane Martin, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center , 515 Cortland Ave , SF , CA 94110 . 415-206-2140 X155, or jmartin@bhnc.org to become part of the effort to Save St. Luke's.
Friday, January 4, 2008
SAVE ST. LUKE'S Coalition Meeting
Join other community leaders, organizations, and unions united against the proposed closure & cuts at St. Luke’s hospital. At this meeting we will finalize plans for a public town hall meeting and plan future community actions.
Monday, January 7th 3:00 pm
3101 Mission at Cesar Chavez
Bernal Gateway Apartments Community Room
Please help spread the word- invite more community leaders, organizations, and patients!
Monday, January 7th 3:00 pm
3101 Mission at Cesar Chavez
Bernal Gateway Apartments Community Room
Please help spread the word- invite more community leaders, organizations, and patients!
Hearing on Closure of 10th Floor and its Impact on Patient and Staff Conditions on the 9th Floor
A hearing will be held Thursday, January 24 at 1:00 PM City Hall, Second Floor, Room TBA [tentative date] in response to concern about the closure of our Surgical/Oncology 10th Floor, and the resulting stress to staff and patients on the 9th Floor.
We particularly need Surgeons, Internists, Family Practitioners in addition to nurses, to testify.
Those of you planning to testify are encouraged to view Video on the Hearing for the City Operations and Neighborhood Service Committee on the closure of 10 and conditions on 9 to see what testimony has already been heard.
Those of you planning to testify are encouraged to view Video on the Hearing for the City Operations and Neighborhood Service Committee on the closure of 10 and conditions on 9 to see what testimony has already been heard.
This notice is being sent out three weeks in advance so speakers can arrange their schedules, or arrange for a proxy to read their testimony. It is recommended that you not plan to work the afternoon of the hearing because it may run late. I will confirm the date as soon as I can.
Because the date for this hearing originally scheduled for mid-November was canceled, and then rescheduled for Nov 29th with less than 48 hour notice, many doctors and nurses who wished to testify could not testify. (those of us who did testify, may not testify again).
Please let me know if you wish to testify. We will organize as in the past to see that all major points and concerns are brought forth with as little redundancy as possible. Please send me your testimony or ideas for testimony in advance to help with the planning. Having testimony in electronic form (WORD.doc) will allow me to e-mail it to the Secretary of the Committee, and see that the CPMC Board is given a copy, also. A speakers preparation meeting will be held on Monday January 21 at 6:15 at the hospital (location to be determined)
Supervisor Alioto-Pier called for this hearing before the Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee (same Committee that heard as on October 25).
To his credit, Dr. Brotman has recently informed the doctors that they are making all efforts to turn the two bed rooms back into singles and the four bed rooms back into doubles.) This a direct consequence of our previous testimony and concern expressed by nurses and doctors.
The question, however, of how large a census would warrant the reopening of the 10th Floor is still to be addressed.
*Recent "Holiday Letter" to St. Luke's Mother/Baby Nurses from CPMC
*The following is the letter sent to the Mother/Baby Nurses to which the CNA "Cease and Desist Letter" makes reference (See previously posted blog).
It was posted on Dec 27 with a deadline for action of January 4.......
California Pacific
Medical Center
A Sutter Health Affiliate
December 20, 2007
To:
Re: Newborn Intensive Care Consolidation, California Pacific Medical Center
As you are aware, the Medical Center intends to cease operations of the Maternity and NICU units of the St. Luke's Campus. Patient care will be consolidated into a new St. Luke's unit, Mother Baby/Special Care Nursery. Level II NICU patient care will be transferred to the Women's and Children's Center at the California Campus.
As we have discussed with you over the past few week, in the new Mother Baby/Special Care Nursery unit at St. Luke's, fifty percent of the benefited Registered Nurses will be required to have at least one year of NICU experience and fifty percent will be required to have one year of post-partum experience. The Registered Nurses in this unit will be expected to be competent to provide care to all patients.
All Registered Nurses accepting positions in the new unit will be required to spend 4 shifts of orientation in the CAL campus NICU. All St. Luke's NICU nurses will be required to spend 2 shifts of orientation in post-partum at either the St. Luke's or the CAL campus. Additionally, all nurses will be required to attend an eight hour STABLE class.
By January 4, 2008, you must choose one of the following options:
1. Accept Training: Based upon your seniority, you will be able to retain your FTE status and shift in the new Mother Baby/Special Care Nursery if you agree to complete the training requirements outlined above and you successfully complete all aspects of the attached competencies.
2. Decline Training: If you decline the position in the new Mother Baby/Special Care Nursery, you have the following options:
a. Bid for open vacancies at St. Luke's
b. Bid for open vacancies @ other CPMC campuses
c. Choose to retire
d. Choose to resign
We understand that this is a difficult situation for you. We value your expertise as a professional nurse and hope you choose to continue to practice at one of the CPMC campuses. We are committed to work with you to keep you as part of our CPMC nursing family.
If you have questions about the information in this letter please feel free to contact Tracey Pomeroy. Return this letter to Tracey Pomeroy by January 4, 2008 indicating which option you prefer. If you fail to return this letter by January 4, the Medical Center will consider that you have elected to resign.
________________ Option Signature_________________
Sincerely,
Julie Clayton and Tracey Pomeroy
Signature
It was posted on Dec 27 with a deadline for action of January 4.......
California Pacific
Medical Center
A Sutter Health Affiliate
December 20, 2007
To:
Re: Newborn Intensive Care Consolidation, California Pacific Medical Center
As you are aware, the Medical Center intends to cease operations of the Maternity and NICU units of the St. Luke's Campus. Patient care will be consolidated into a new St. Luke's unit, Mother Baby/Special Care Nursery. Level II NICU patient care will be transferred to the Women's and Children's Center at the California Campus.
As we have discussed with you over the past few week, in the new Mother Baby/Special Care Nursery unit at St. Luke's, fifty percent of the benefited Registered Nurses will be required to have at least one year of NICU experience and fifty percent will be required to have one year of post-partum experience. The Registered Nurses in this unit will be expected to be competent to provide care to all patients.
All Registered Nurses accepting positions in the new unit will be required to spend 4 shifts of orientation in the CAL campus NICU. All St. Luke's NICU nurses will be required to spend 2 shifts of orientation in post-partum at either the St. Luke's or the CAL campus. Additionally, all nurses will be required to attend an eight hour STABLE class.
By January 4, 2008, you must choose one of the following options:
1. Accept Training: Based upon your seniority, you will be able to retain your FTE status and shift in the new Mother Baby/Special Care Nursery if you agree to complete the training requirements outlined above and you successfully complete all aspects of the attached competencies.
2. Decline Training: If you decline the position in the new Mother Baby/Special Care Nursery, you have the following options:
a. Bid for open vacancies at St. Luke's
b. Bid for open vacancies @ other CPMC campuses
c. Choose to retire
d. Choose to resign
We understand that this is a difficult situation for you. We value your expertise as a professional nurse and hope you choose to continue to practice at one of the CPMC campuses. We are committed to work with you to keep you as part of our CPMC nursing family.
If you have questions about the information in this letter please feel free to contact Tracey Pomeroy. Return this letter to Tracey Pomeroy by January 4, 2008 indicating which option you prefer. If you fail to return this letter by January 4, the Medical Center will consider that you have elected to resign.
________________ Option Signature_________________
Sincerely,
Julie Clayton and Tracey Pomeroy
Signature
Thursday, January 3, 2008
CNA Protests CPMC's Handling of Changes in Nursery and Maternity RN's Assignments
From: Nato Green
Labor Representative
California Nurses Association
National Nurses Organizing Committee
2000 Franklin St., Oakland , CA 94612
Tel: (510) 273-2269 l Fax: (510) 663-5712
http://www.calnurses.org/
http://www.singlepayer.com/
Dear Mr. Young,
The Medical Center letter to St. Luke’s nursery and maternity RNs dated December 20, 2007 does not reflect what we agreed to in effects bargaining on November 26, and restated in my email of December 5, over the implementation of the merged Mother-Baby/Special Care Nursery Unit. It is unfortunate that once again, CPMC freely ignores agreements with CNA and public pronouncements regarding its plans for St. Luke’s. Immediately cease and desist implementation of the terms of this letter, deliver a corrected letter that reflects our actual agreement, and rescind any resignations effected as a result of this letter. Specifically:
CPMC agreed to provide CNA with a copy of the notice at the time of posting. The December 20 letter was not provided to CNA by CPMC in any fashion.
CPMC agreed to provide CNA with a copy of any program flexibility CPMC has from the State for St. Luke’s NICU beds. This has not occurred. Please provide CNA with this information or confirm in writing that CPMC does not have program flexibility.
CNA maintains that nurses were entitled to appropriate advance written notice from CPMC of their options. On November 26, CPMC agreed to provide this notice to affected RNs so they could have approximately 30 days from receipt of the notice to make their decision based on the notice. The letter dated December 20 was in fact post-marked December 27, with a January 4 deadline for action, coming to many nurses’ homes by mail over the holiday weekend. Less than 7 days formal notice over a holiday weekend by no stretch of the imagination constitutes adequate written notification. As I indicated in my email of December 5, if nurses are not adequately noticed by the Medical Center , implementation of these changes must be delayed accordingly so adequate notice may occur. Therefore, the nurses must be afforded 30 days to make their election.
On November 26, CNA requested and the Medical Center agreed that RNs electing to accept training and retain their positions would not need to do anything. Advising nurses that they must affirmatively elect to keep their jobs or the Medical Center will consider that they have resigned is the exact opposite of what was agreed to or intended in our effects bargaining. CPMC must immediately rescind any resignations that occur based on any nurse’s failure to respond in the unreasonable timeframe contained in this letter.
CNA can only assume that the Medical Center deliberately delayed providing the notice by an entire month, deliberately declined to provide CNA a copy, and deliberately mailed the letter with a difficult turnaround time as a way to continue the erosion of staff and morale at St. Luke’s and to seek a procedural gimmick to push out nurses from the merged unit who wouldn’t otherwise be displaced. This behavior is continued evidence of CPMC’s bad faith in relation to CNA and all stakeholders involved in St. Luke’s, anti-union and anti-nurse animus, and determination to ensure St. Luke’s cannot remain a viable hospital.
Sincerely,
Nato Green
Labor Representative
CC:// Bonnie Castillo , RN, CNA Sutter Division Director; CPMC/St. Luke’s Negotiating Team;
Julie Clayton, CPMC; Tracey Pomeroy, CPMC
Labor Representative
California Nurses Association
National Nurses Organizing Committee
2000 Franklin St., Oakland , CA 94612
Tel: (510) 273-2269 l Fax: (510) 663-5712
http://www.calnurses.org/
http://www.singlepayer.com/
Dear Mr. Young,
The Medical Center letter to St. Luke’s nursery and maternity RNs dated December 20, 2007 does not reflect what we agreed to in effects bargaining on November 26, and restated in my email of December 5, over the implementation of the merged Mother-Baby/Special Care Nursery Unit. It is unfortunate that once again, CPMC freely ignores agreements with CNA and public pronouncements regarding its plans for St. Luke’s. Immediately cease and desist implementation of the terms of this letter, deliver a corrected letter that reflects our actual agreement, and rescind any resignations effected as a result of this letter. Specifically:
CPMC agreed to provide CNA with a copy of the notice at the time of posting. The December 20 letter was not provided to CNA by CPMC in any fashion.
CPMC agreed to provide CNA with a copy of any program flexibility CPMC has from the State for St. Luke’s NICU beds. This has not occurred. Please provide CNA with this information or confirm in writing that CPMC does not have program flexibility.
CNA maintains that nurses were entitled to appropriate advance written notice from CPMC of their options. On November 26, CPMC agreed to provide this notice to affected RNs so they could have approximately 30 days from receipt of the notice to make their decision based on the notice. The letter dated December 20 was in fact post-marked December 27, with a January 4 deadline for action, coming to many nurses’ homes by mail over the holiday weekend. Less than 7 days formal notice over a holiday weekend by no stretch of the imagination constitutes adequate written notification. As I indicated in my email of December 5, if nurses are not adequately noticed by the Medical Center , implementation of these changes must be delayed accordingly so adequate notice may occur. Therefore, the nurses must be afforded 30 days to make their election.
On November 26, CNA requested and the Medical Center agreed that RNs electing to accept training and retain their positions would not need to do anything. Advising nurses that they must affirmatively elect to keep their jobs or the Medical Center will consider that they have resigned is the exact opposite of what was agreed to or intended in our effects bargaining. CPMC must immediately rescind any resignations that occur based on any nurse’s failure to respond in the unreasonable timeframe contained in this letter.
CNA can only assume that the Medical Center deliberately delayed providing the notice by an entire month, deliberately declined to provide CNA a copy, and deliberately mailed the letter with a difficult turnaround time as a way to continue the erosion of staff and morale at St. Luke’s and to seek a procedural gimmick to push out nurses from the merged unit who wouldn’t otherwise be displaced. This behavior is continued evidence of CPMC’s bad faith in relation to CNA and all stakeholders involved in St. Luke’s, anti-union and anti-nurse animus, and determination to ensure St. Luke’s cannot remain a viable hospital.
Sincerely,
Nato Green
Labor Representative
CC:// Bonnie Castillo , RN, CNA Sutter Division Director; CPMC/St. Luke’s Negotiating Team;
Julie Clayton, CPMC; Tracey Pomeroy, CPMC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
