Valley Hospital’s proposed expansion application in Ridgewood has rankled more than a few of its area residents with the prospects of increased traffic. The roads around Valley are already dealing with rush hour congestion problems. How will Valley’s increased managed care capacity magnify those problems? How will the general area’s healthcare access be affected?
Valley Hospital is surrounded with a rural road infrastructure. Add a $750 million investment to accommodate Valley’s anticipated growth in managed care demands, and traffic congestion isn’t simply a possibility. The two questions on access become a dozen ‘what-if’ questions should a renewed hospital be denied in Westwood.
Travel time is part and parcel of any medical access definition. Valley Hospital is the closest quality hospital to the closed Pascack Valley Hospital (PVH). Each mile, every potential obstacle, increases the displacement time between a diagnosis and a treatment. That displacement will be decisive in a breath for life.
Various studies evaluating mortality in relation to a hospital’s distance exist but they tend to be seen as inconclusive in the eyes of some critics. Many originate from countries with large rural areas, like Australia or New Zealand. Some suggest 30 miles or 30 minutes as being the limits to timely life saving treatments. Since we don’t have open stretches of roadway, the 30 minutes seems more transferable for consideration.
Still, the variety of complex factors that can affect a study’s criteria only highlight the complicated concerns in respecting the needs for accessibility. For example, is travel impedance and miles primary or should social economic situations in combination with age and disease divided by travel costs and distance decay attitudes be a heavier weight in balancing life and death results?
In general terms, one 2007 study noted, “… data suggest that any changes that increase journey distances to a hospital for all emergency patients, may lead to an increase in mortality for a small number of patients with life-threatening medical emergencies …” This study highlighted that each 10 km (6.2 miles) of distance resulted in an approximate 1% increase in mortality. Valley and Englewood’s vision would reduce timely life saving treatment to a lottery of circumstance. Is 1 death per 100 acceptable odds?
Mortality concerns rise with minimum disagreement when discussing respiratory, diabetes and prenatal related illnesses relative to time of care. Heart attacks generate different views since some believe the level of EMT care can offset the transport time to a hospital. Yet, a 2003 Cornell University (CU) study found that for each five-minute increase in the time to reach a hospital, a heart attack victim’s probability of receiving the appropriate care in time, falls 1.25 percent. In a CU press release Mr. O’Neill, the study’s author, stated, “Our research shows that for people who experience heart attacks, distance from a hospital has a very significant impact on their access to medical facilities and their eventual outcome.” (Estimating Out-of-Hospital Mortality Due to Myocardial Infarction, by Liam O’Neill)
HUMC and Legacy’s proposed 128-bed hospital, HUMC North, is seeking to offer the north corner of Bergen County an access relief valve to essential hospital medical care. The redeveloped hospital would be over 50% smaller in bed capacity then PVH. Collectively, with Valley and Englewood, they would offer northern New Jersey residents comprehensive access to necessary healthcare resources, plus accessible surge capacity in the event of a pandemic crisis.
The American College of Emergency Physicians’ noted in a December 2008 press release “New Jersey policymakers need to take immediate action to address the multitude of issues restricting patients’ access to emergency care,” said Dr. McGill. “Hospital closures and high hospital occupancy rates may be contributing to hospital crowding and boarding of patients in emergency departments, which are a growing problem in the state.”
Medical conditions, travel time, physical effort, age, socio-economic situations, costs, all affect accessibility outcomes. Ultimately a hospital’s distance, in medical terms to the people of its intended care, must define access. Valley and Englewood can declare their proximity is ‘adequate’ — but then their costs of operations doesn’t include the funeral costs of those for whom it wasn’t.
Area residents are reminded to sign the petition to show their support for the return of a hospital. (Please click HERE to sign that petition.) Don’t let HUMC’s competitors decide the Pascack and Northern Valley health resource needs! Show your support, tie a green ribbon around a tree in front of your home. Or call HUMC’s public relation’s department at 201-996-3760 for a ‘People First’ lawn sign.
It’s interesting how many things come into play with a hospital’s location. Are there any records on what planning considerations were used to open any of these hospitals? How does the state’s board determine whether to let a hospital add beds?
Comment by Gibbs — February 2, 2009 @ 10:07 PM
With considerations as noted here how could the State buy into any negative argument?
Comment by Mariana — February 3, 2009 @ 10:36 AM
For-profit is the only way we’re going to see a hospital back in Westwood. The financial collapse of the money lenders and the empty state coffers leaves few alternatives. Ignoring the access need can’t be an option.
Comment by Tim — February 3, 2009 @ 12:06 PM
Valley and Englewood are phony’s to be claiming they care about their patients. We are all patients of theirs now and they’re saying pick a number.
Comment by Teresa — February 3, 2009 @ 12:20 PM
It’s not a comforting thought to know your going back in time to the wild west days when competition meant hurting someone to get ahead.
Comment by Cowboy Bob — February 3, 2009 @ 12:33 PM
I still don’t understand the money. Why would Valley and Englewood advertise so much if there wasn’t a real concern? Their spending a lot of money to fight this, aren’t they?
Comment by Robert — February 3, 2009 @ 12:46 PM
I noticed your the only one who continually talks about this hospital thing. It seems longer between press updates. Is that because there really isn’t a problem and the hospital is coming back? It certainly seems like the information implies there isn’t much choice.
Comment by An observation — February 3, 2009 @ 3:27 PM
I read this on ‘The Ridgewood Blog’ and clicked over. Lot of great stuff. Impressive.
Comment by Anonymous — February 3, 2009 @ 4:54 PM
STMI or NSTMI (myocardial infarction/heart attack) refers to a cardiac marker diagnosed by a blood lab test, not done in an ambulance; time is a quintessential factor in survival. EMT’s can help but don’t put the onus on them. We need to reopen the hospital.
Comment by Philip — February 3, 2009 @ 6:29 PM
Valley & Englewood should be ashamed to put people at risk though their opposition.
Comment by TKS — February 4, 2009 @ 10:43 AM
Holy Name and Hackensack Hospital are farther away then Valley and Englewood but because of what I’ve been reading here, I’d rather drive farther for my elective needs then go to them. I really hope we get a hospital back in Westwood.
Comment by Claton — February 4, 2009 @ 12:32 PM
It seems like hospitals with aggressive growth agendas have no shame. They rationalize what they are doing as for the greater good. Valley steam rolls residents in opposition to its expansion. And Englewood collects indebted politicians.
They and their apologists are the real “Kool Aid” drinkers. Ever see the T shirt – “Whoever dies with the most toys wins”?
The opposition’s should read “Whoever controls the most patients wins”. For them it can never be about truly serving patients -its all about closing hospitals to win patients.
Comment by joann — February 4, 2009 @ 2:00 PM
Just thought to let you know, your blog has generated some discussions in Ridgewood and some comments on ‘theridgewoodblog.blogspot.com’ There are some us concerned with what could happen to Ridgewood if demands at Valley increases. We want your hospital to reopen too.
Comment by Anonymous — February 4, 2009 @ 8:52 PM
Comment # 11 by Clayton shows how much local residents are disgusted by Valley and Englewood’s attempts to torpedo our hospital. Holy Name has stayed out of it. Maybe we should be promoting Holy Name as an alternative to Valley. Maybe folks thinking about using Valley should have a look at Holy Name first. Their neutrality should be rewarded. Maybe that would also help the folks in Ridgewood who Valley is hoping to inundate with more cars , truck deliveries, traffic and congestion.
Comment by joann — February 5, 2009 @ 11:16 AM
I come to your site out of curiosity to see the blog picture of the week. I think more about the context of the issue from some of the pictures. What are you on? You should be sharing it with the opposition so they can get a clearer sense of patient concerns.
Comment by Flowers — February 6, 2009 @ 9:45 AM