Two years and the likelihood for a new hospital returning to Westwood isn’t any clearer. We have a hospital organization, which deferred its application for the extended certificate of need, offering no new guidance as to their end game. We have Westwood elected officials placing a letter to the editor in the local papers saying they’re going to hold the governor-elect to his word. (Sounds good, means little.) We have a multi-town non-binding referendum passed with 72% in support of a reopened hospital. And we have a newspaper editorial presenting the options—“The choice pits expert evaluation against political desire”—but from perhaps a misdirected viewpoint.
Regrettably with each passing month the choice is simply between feelings of hope and frustration. The election aligned the political pieces but basic questions remain unanswered. At the end of the day this is a business process. Unless various decision ‘considerations’ are positioned as assets for success, we remain spectators.
The process begins with a serious playing field. We need HUMC to be clear as to its intentions. Unfortunately HUMC has had its own internal organizational challenges. Its prior CEO was entangled in a political distraction. Its bond rating received a shot across the bow. Its operations are experiencing a shake up with new leadership. It’s addressing current expansion tasks on its own turf. Even their initial objective of a medical college and an ER/Medical Mall became a decision in transition. The point—HUMC has had a full plate and the opportunities of a horizontal integration with a hospital in Westwood appear to be a back burner priority. Consequently, until we have an active application everything else is almost moot.
This is where the ‘almost’ needs clarity too. We need a municipality clear in its message by deed, not words. So far the municipality has offered a lot of hubris acclamations toward a hospital’s return. Everything from diluting a zoning ordinance, to a protest walk on an opposing hospital, to claims opposing officials were being set straight. All of that prancing has brought us no closer to an affirmative outcome.
We need to have the non-binding referendum reinforced with reasoning so that the opposition cannot set it aside as unjustified noise. We’ve had politicians and editorials taking a comprehensive health care resource report, diminishing it to self-serving sound bites. How difficult would it be to manipulate the referendum in a similar way?
We need the hearsay of a Department of Health (DOH) influenced by politics to be baseless. We have a DOH with a public policy objective. “Develop, for the benefit of the residents of New Jersey, a comprehensive Health Care Resource Plan to promote the rational use of public and private health care resources and services.” (Executive Order No. 39) It can’t do that if ‘strategic management’ is reduced to a synonym for politics. And it can’t do it if it isn’t provided an option to decide. Hence we go back to point one, no application—no decision.
The State’s Report used the Dartmouth Atlas Project’s assessment to define the various Hospital Service Areas. They believed the Project’s study, having been “based on actual patterns of care,” would contribute in identifying the State’s geographic health care utilization parameters.
Look at the map below. Each section was defined by Dartmouth Atlas (DA) and represents a Hospital Service Area with live people dependent on a rational decision. Are there too many beds in each area—or—the area as a whole? Why isn’t anyone asking if the actual location of the beds should be a consideration? The Report raises the issue.
There is an opportunity to have New Jersey beds available within a 15-minute drive time of all residents in the north corner of Bergen County. That means considering the report’s discussion points in their entirety and respecting the concept of strategic management to meet objectives.
To a passive reader of curiosity it looks like that HUMC has more important concerns in its own playground. What happen to that Legacy group?
Comment by zebra — November 17, 2009 @ 12:07 PM
What good is westwood or anybody doing anything at this point if humc hasn’t shown a commitment to us. Were they ever really committed. If I remember right you offered a letter or something where they said to someone that they weren’t buying the license when they bought the hospital.
Comment by isadora — November 17, 2009 @ 12:20 PM
Didn’t they pay about 800 thousand for that license. That’d be a awful waste of money if they didn’t mean to reopen that hospital.
Comment by tonyG — November 18, 2009 @ 8:23 AM
The question of placing beds where they might actually serve a defined population’s need for timely access to critical care; (rather than allowing an institution to hoard any number of licensed beds without regard to local demand or the hospitals ability to staff those beds) has been asked. But only in letters to the editor.
When does HUMC start asking those questions in an organized presentation to the DOH Planning Board? When Does HUMC present a case for our hospital as detailed and compelling as the one you have assembled through these blogs? Residents have done all they can. They showed up in June to fill the High School for the first hearing. But even then and there…where was any semblance of a professional presentation by HUMC; one that could have refuted Valley’s “sky is falling” propaganda? How come the only voice that is regularly heard is Ms. Fraser’s – the Tokyo Rose of Valley Hospital – constantly telling us to surrender?
When does HUMC start acting like it actually wants to give us what it has promised – our hospital back? What happens if HUMC just dribbles out the clock until the CN extension lapses? What happens to the timing of the extension with no application currently pending? When will its CEO take concrete steps with the DOH to secure that end? And what happens if he doesn’t?
The folks who have supported HUMC deserve to have these questions answered. HUMC should be as upfront with us now; as they were solicitous when they twice came to Westwood to gain our support. We shouldn’t have to read about it in the papers.
Comment by Ray — November 17, 2009 @ 2:22 PM
Why is it about beds? Isn’t caring for people important too?
Comment by Sean — November 17, 2009 @ 2:24 PM
Interesting, Englewood is quoted in today’s Record. They’re still losing money. Means our having no hospital makes no difference in covering their incompetence.
Comment by Dirk — November 17, 2009 @ 4:27 PM
I don’t doubt our state health department will think of our needs but its not going to give us a hospital. If hackensack hospital isn’t prepared to do it than we’re out of luck. If that happens i blame the elected officials in westwood for putting down a welcome mat without thinking about assuring the future.
Comment by mattperry — November 17, 2009 @ 5:48 PM
How far are HH, VH and EH from each other? They seem close.
Comment by livon — November 17, 2009 @ 6:06 PM
Was that coincidental your giving Englewood a red star. It seems appropriate after reading their in the red and laying off people.
Comment by Phaseout — November 17, 2009 @ 6:13 PM
Would like to know how the Record’s editorials come to their conclusions. Ahearn seems to believe we don’t need a hospital. His writing appears to be sole sourced.
Comment by MaryCarnes — November 17, 2009 @ 7:16 PM
HUMC hasn’t said anything direct in months because they got no money. They’re going to let the extension run out and submit their application and let the DOH turn them down. Then they’ll turn to Westwood and say oh well, sorry, out of our hands.
Comment by Brad — November 17, 2009 @ 10:47 PM
That sounds about right. What did your officials do to prevent this? March on Valley?
Looks like they should have marched on Hackensack.
Comment by H.Parker — November 19, 2009 @ 3:01 PM
Luv the map. can’t understand why HUMC thought it had to worry about politics.
Comment by checkers — November 18, 2009 @ 10:12 AM
Read the Record this morning on the train. About Hackensack hospital cleaning up their proverbial butt. It’s no different from what some said help killed Pascack Valley. Probably no different from this Valley and Englewood too. With all this inside house cleaning claiming their attention I don’t see anytime soon for them to reopen a hospital. Also read your letter to editor. Doubt anyones paying attention.
Comment by Ethan — November 20, 2009 @ 10:36 AM
That’s correct no one is paying attention. Keep watching Dancing with the Stars and Entertainment Tonight..
Comment by gragg — November 21, 2009 @ 7:49 AM
Drove by the center of town on Kinderkamack and I see they took down the hospital banner. Why? Isn’t it still a main concern of ours in the valley? Since when does something important have seasons? How come all the towns don’t have them up? Why isn’t Westwood taking a lead on this? I know it may seem like a lotta questions but I just deep down assumed the hospital was coming back in two years. Thought the hu-rah here was just political drama now I don’t know anymore. Two years is gone. I don’t want to go to Nyack, Valley or Engelwood. I want to go to Pascack Valley. We need our hospital back!
Comment by Sallyann — November 21, 2009 @ 4:39 PM