The Department of Health (DOH) usually has two hearings to discuss a hospital’s certificate of need status. The first is in the community affected. The second is in Trenton where it renders a decision—The perceived independent advocate for the State’s health and human services is the DOH; except its’ independent certificate of need (CN) for a hospital in Westwood is now immersed in the muck of political rhetoric.
Pascack Valley Hospital’s reopening has been parlayed into a political special interest debate. It unfortunately brings the DOH’s independence into question. Is the “need” of the Pascack and Northern Valley residents real or political? Remember the DOH had voted to EXTEND the CN in evaluating the hospital’s closing. It did so to enable a hospital to reopen if an opportunity should avail itself. It had independently determined the hospital had a market service area of need, with no political debate. What changed?
The State’s Report advised that it chose to use the Dartmouth Atlas Project’s analysis in defining NJ hospital markets because it was “well recognized by the health-services research community as reflecting actual travel patterns for hospitalization.” The State’s analysis then decided to “combine three Hospital Referral Regions in the north to form the Hackensack, Ridgewood and Paterson hospital market area, based on an analysis of where patients from the zip codes that comprise these areas were hospitalized.”
The State had deemed other forms of market boundaries as “somewhat arbitrary definitions,” not reflecting the how or where people utilize health care services. Yet it is the arbitrary definition Valley and Englewood are bantering in their opposition. It is the arbitrary definition that Senator Loretta Weinberg has chosen to recognize. Look at the map below as per their arbitrary definition of the Hackensack/ Ridgewood/ Paterson hospital market.
When the State’s report was written there were fifteen hospitals considered within that market area. This map shows the remaining hospitals—eleven. (Bergen Regional Medical Center is not included, as it is a Long Term Acute Care, Behavioral Health Care, and Nursing Home Facility that performs too few procedures to be clearly rated for performance. Click HERE to read most recent report. This facility was also not considered in the Dartmouth Atlas analysis. It is not a facility one would call a choice in a trauma situation. Probably the reason why it continues to be Bergen County’s best kept secret.)
Note that under the State’s analysis, 92% of patients were hospitalized within the Dartmouth Atlas (D.A.) market service areas they resided. (Prior posts note the D.A. market service area for Valley and Englewood.) The State’s Report extracted any consideration for out of state hospitals so as to have, “defined geographic areas that are entirely within the State of New Jersey’s boundaries.” If we apply that same consideration to the opposition’s arbitrary market definition, the northeast corner population is denied ready access to hospital services and choice.
The purpose of showing the Weinberg/ Valley/ Englewood perspective, in the above map, is to suggest that if their reasoning of proximity had any validity—then St. Mary’s in Passaic, which is in bankruptcy, isn’t worth saving either. But then we know that isn’t true—because it would negatively impact and exasperate health care services to the people within the Passaic communities.
November 3rd is Election Day. IF it’s accurate that the DOH is influenced by politics then this election is important to the residents of the Pascack and Northern Valley. Several municipalities have referendums to gauge voter support for the return of a hospital.
If an area resident has a family member, senior parent or neighbor with the possibility of experiencing a youth sport head injury, anaphylactic shock, heart attack, brain stem stroke or similar emergency—all traumas—then time matters.Voter support for the referendums are important. Voter support, regardless of party affiliation, should also be considered for Charlotte Vandervalk and Bob Schroeder for Assembly. They have both been active and vocal in their positive support. Likewise Senator Loretta Weinberg as a Lieutenant Governor candidate should be ignored! She has turned her back on the area residents’ health care service needs within her public statements.
In Westwood, where a returned hospital would be based, the Independent candidates, Conkling and Frasco deserve the vote for Council. They have a documentable history of action. The current Council candidates have offered lip service and a massive development ordinance on the hospital site that does not require a hospital. If we’re to get our hospital back, we have to be firm in expressing our families’ needs at every vantage point. ACT, be heard—VOTE Tuesday, November 3rd.
I had thought a month ago Corzine and Weinberg would have come out in support for the hospital. I guess not. Going to have to go for Chris Christie for Governor. He at least spoke of support for the hospital reopening.
Comment by avoter2 — October 20, 2009 @ 4:06 PM
And it seems the geniuses in Westwood have Corzine Wineberg signs in front of the hospital. Do they ” Want A Hospital” or do they want a Governor and Lt. Governor who don’t?
Comment by Kelly — October 24, 2009 @ 10:20 PM
Arbitrary doesn’t sound scientific. What have these opposing hospitals offered for argument support? Surly they have offered more than nothing.
Comment by phillip32 — October 20, 2009 @ 4:29 PM
They have offered less than zero.
Comment by ACP — October 23, 2009 @ 11:42 PM
When you look at those rings it makes it look like we’re all covered for medical care. That is until you need to get the care and have to get to a hospital. Before anyone suggest we can close any hospitals they need to tell us what the state’s doing about a public transit system.
Comment by Happymaker — October 20, 2009 @ 6:10 PM
There is no public transport east or west. You can’t get from Closter to Ridgewood by bus. Taking a taxi is twice the cost of what it was to Westwood.
Comment by breaker — October 21, 2009 @ 12:03 PM
It’s amazing that Holy Name Hospital can do so well with all that competition. Englewood doesn’t need Pascack closed; it needs better management to find itself.
Comment by singley — October 20, 2009 @ 6:17 PM
BRMC has a new ER. Surprised Englewood and Valley don’t say we don’t need an ER in Westwood too. But kidding aside why doesn’t the DOH just adjust the various hospitals bed rank by their actual use?
Comment by checker — October 20, 2009 @ 6:17 PM
Why would Weinberg be so abrupt in her assessment of our need for a hospital? Is St. Mary’s Passaic need somehow more important then ours for you to compare the two situations?
Everyone in the state should be treated equally but that doesn’t seem to be so. If I can be in Norwood without any local coverage how does Weinberg balance it? Is this how she’ll treat the rest of the state, preferential treatment to special interest groups? I can’t believe that’s the case.
Comment by Sgt2009 — October 20, 2009 @ 6:31 PM
Its amazing how politics is like a weed in a lawn. If it gets a foothold it chokes all the good grass. The rhetoric out here has really undercut the real issue of our concerns. I’m an undeclared voter. I don’t believe in party dribble. I vote the people and the issues. I’ll vote for the people who understand our needs. Thank you.
Comment by Jackson — October 20, 2009 @ 7:38 PM
The dribble in Westwood is worse then a great dane. We have a Democrat Mayor endorsing Republicans in the name of harmony. He doesn’t do it because he accomplishing anything, only because he’s afraid if the two Independents get elected he’ll be held accountable.
I listened to the Mayor dribble on how if the incumbents are put back in office the Westvale fields would be completed during his term. He didn’t say which term. I’ve seen the plans. There circulating around via e-mail. I heard the old Mayor put them out for people to see. There nice plans. There on a landfill. There’s parking proposed by the brook. They can’t even get our brook dredged how the heck are they going to get permits to do all they want to do in any reasonable time? How much will this end up costing us? Nothings been done in two years. Fool me once shame on you. If you fool me twice then I belong in Bergen Pines.
Comment by Reg — October 21, 2009 @ 4:10 PM
I haven’t commented in a while but! Harmony is all about smiles and not making waves. Ever try moving forward in water without making waves, you drown. The several letters to the editors in the locals for our current seat warmers all say status quo. We’ve been there and done that before and it cost us a 20% tax increase.
The status quo shows in Westvale Park, nothings changed in 2 years. It’s a shame the clay fields were allowed to overgrow. Couldn’t the local sports have used them? Why couldn’t they just have finished what was started? All this and we read our debt’s going to rise again.
Westvale Park’s been a great place to walk. A lot of kids seem to be practicing or playing games. I’m down there at least once a week to walk a couple of laps and enjoy watching the peaceful activities. Occasionally we’ll see a fox along the edges. We need a park where kids can play and seniors can enjoy a local community area to stretch our legs. We don’t need a sport complex.
I fear it’s the same initiative being applied to our hospital, one eye open and one eye shut. I know some people think harmony is great but it’s not real. Constructive conflict compels people to be clear. It can inspire alternative thinking. It might keep Westwood affordable and help get our hospital back.
Comment by JimC — October 21, 2009 @ 9:44 PM
Please don’t let this blog get off track on Westwood issues. It should all be about the hospital. I just read Comment 15 and that person’s right; it’s about leadership, not personalities. Your current Council may be trying but I don’t see what I would call leadership. Change for the sake of change is not good but change for possibly better is worth a look. It’s almost two years since our hospital has been closed. What’s going to happen on its anniversary?
Comment by breaker — October 22, 2009 @ 9:03 AM
Went into Westwood for dinner tonight. Saw a long row of Corzine/Weinberg signs in front of PHV. Weinberg opposes the hospital. And Corzine only comes this far north to squeeze us for more revenue.
The signs are a slap in the face for everyone who supports the hospital. I know your mayor is a democrat. But the signs were in the public right of way. So I guess your council members are okay with that. What a disgrace. Can’t even get that right.
Comment by harrington parker — October 24, 2009 @ 7:55 PM
Our mayor has become so full of himself he can’t see or understanding our problems. Have you listen to him lately. He huffs and puffs with noise to hear the sound of his voice. He brags about as though he has done something. This hospital needs a leader or we’ll end up with an urgent care mall.
Comment by Trica — October 24, 2009 @ 9:16 PM
The local politics seem to be affected by several issues besides the hospital. If you consider the recent letters to the editor the incumbents haven’t been very productive. I personally noticed that in 2007 there were things done during the first year when Mr. Phaye was elected, but noticed that after Conkling and Frasco left things seem to have stopped. That means Conkling and Frasco were the link to things getting done. What has Grefrath and Phayre done the last two years? I like them but this hospital needs people who can speak up for us. Conkling and Frasco got my vote.
Comment by Cris22 — October 20, 2009 @ 7:50 PM
Grafrath and Phayre have spoken up for us but maybe we need more. I’m haven’t read any articles written by supporters speaking to anything they’ve actually done. Thanks for sharing.
Comment by Bulganan — October 21, 2009 @ 6:22 PM
Any talk that St. Mary’s could close would be sacrilege. Passaic residents NEED the hospital. We have over 60,000 people that would be hurt. We’re not some small town, we’re a city.
Comment by A James — October 20, 2009 @ 8:26 PM
Corzine: 0, Daggett: 0, Christie: 1 and what will next week bring?
Comment by Starring369 — October 20, 2009 @ 8:59 PM
Which towns have a referendum? It kind of says the DOH is influenced by politics. Whose brainstorm was it to accommodate that notion? Doesn’t that just allow the turnout to prejudiced interpretations?
Comment by Millicent — October 20, 2009 @ 11:01 PM
This grefrath and phayre I saw commented on in your previous post what are they, republican or democrat? Are they the same people as peter and william? Aren’t they the same ones who passed that ordinance you objected to?
It stands to reason if they weren’t able to put together an ordinance that declared you needed your hospital then their not to sure what they’re to do. If we’re going to get what we believe we need then we need people we can believe in. Hopefully your town and others won’t simply vote political lines. We need to be sure we tell our need in every way, lower property taxes and our hospital.
Comment by Pundit — October 21, 2009 @ 8:47 AM
There seems like a lot of circles in that map. It’s a little misconceiving on a small map. Though its pretty clear there’s no ring around that corner.
Comment by Dirk — October 21, 2009 @ 10:04 AM
Its disappointing to think that a hospital could be decided by politics. I could more readily see us manipulated by Hackensack Hospital. What have they been doing since they said they asked for the delay?
Comment by Cala — October 21, 2009 @ 11:31 AM
To those who think the politicians are going to bring back your hospital, dream on. Read a recent article on nj.com ( http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2009/10/plainfield_feeling_the_pain_of.html ). Its about Muhlenberg Hospital which closed a little over a year ago. All our commentators are blaming the illegals and everyone else. It was our politicians fault. They offered words and little in any action, placing hope in others. We had no leadership or anybody who understood the system. You want your hospital back, seize the reigns.
Comment by The Continuum — October 21, 2009 @ 10:47 PM
It’s frightening to think it’s possible that we wouldn’t get our hospital back. According to that article Corzine would be against this hospital reopening. He hasn’t spoken up for us so far or shown himself to be flexible except to special interests. When you look at all the hospitals that have been allowed to close you being to see the possibility isn’t good. We better vote for people that will talk for us.
Comment by MB — October 22, 2009 @ 6:05 PM
That article noted the gubernatorial candidates’ stance on hospital closings:
Those words should be seen and considered in this election by those concerned about accessible medical care. Corzine is approaching the issue the way he addressed the rising costs in New Jersey. He furloughed State employees to save costs then retracted his actions by simply deferring the costs into the next gubernatorial term, a standard switch and bait political move. He acts likewise without consideration to the effect of bed locations, choosing to seek simple solutions without appreciating the ramifications. He turns his back on the alternative recommendations within his own report.
Daggett is clueless if he believes the residents around Muhlenberg are served by a “satellite emergency department.’’ That facility was directed by the DOH to provide free transportation service to JFK Hospital for five years as of the hospital’s closing, recognizing the lack of an efficient public transit system. It also was a facility that had no other viable options available and whose certificate of need was not extended. What happens in five years?
Pascack Valley Hospital also sits in an area without an efficient public transit system, but has a viable option to reopen; and it has an extended certificate of need. It only needs intelligent, practical and compassionate politicians capable of assimilating facts and acting. We need them in Trenton, in the State Assembly and on the local Council.
Comment by riskaverse — October 23, 2009 @ 10:35 AM
In a recent letter in the local paper a Westwood councilmen said, “others have not been ‘seen’ or ‘heard’ on this critical issue.” The hospital is the critical issue and the others are non-elected residents. Apparently he was drawing contrast to what he and his comrades have done.
He considers the dilution of the hospital site ordinance an accomplishment. He implies credit for a petition that was started by a senior citizen going door to door. He apparently considers being ‘seen’ in a failed rally walk an accomplishment. He offers empty rhetoric as noise to be ‘heard.’
He should take a good look into the facts on what this council has done to get our hospital back. Two years and counting, how much longer? What’s the plan, hope Corzine’s not elected? What happens if we get a negative response? No answers? Better to keep one’s mouth shut and thought clueless than to open it and remove all doubt.
Comment by Gragg — October 23, 2009 @ 8:07 AM
Westwood left it up to the hospital and the school to figure it out. And when there is no hospital they’ll say they did all they could. But all they did was what Ferguson told them to do. The new guy Garret may be a seat warmer. He seems to be out of it.
Comment by Bo Knows — October 23, 2009 @ 11:56 PM
Wow! Really. Last time I visited here was almost a year ago. Amazing. No movement on the hospital. Where’s the case? Was going to ask where’s the town’s leaders but based on the comments, they’re sleeping with the groundhogs.
Comment by Charles R — October 24, 2009 @ 11:26 PM
Information overload
Comment by boso — October 25, 2009 @ 1:42 PM
Drove by the hospital ER this afternoon. Looks like they took down those Corzine Weinberg signs and everyone elses near the road around there.
Comment by Starring369 — October 25, 2009 @ 7:45 PM
I Guess the ones who put them up read this blog.
Comment by Paul — October 25, 2009 @ 9:27 PM
Saw the Pascak Press today. How come HUMC isn’t asking for another c/n extension? Why don’t they schedule the final hearing? What good is asking Corzine? Funny how HUMC asked, in July, for an “up to 6 month delay” knowing the CN expires on Nov.21 – not “December” or the “end of the year”. What goes on here?
Comment by Hello? — October 26, 2009 @ 1:45 PM