On Nov. 29 the State’s Health Planning Board will hold its 2nd and final meeting at 9:30 AM in the East Windsor at the Holiday Inn National Conference Center, located at 399 Monmouth St. Final comments will be heard as to whether or not a new 128-bed hospital should reopen at the Pascack Valley Hospital (PVH) site in Westwood.
At the 1st meeting, Oct. 19, the Board heard public comments overwhelmingly supportive of HUMC’s certificate of need application to reopen a hospital. It included two hours of declarations on the hospital’s need offered from area politicians, physicians, emergency personnel and residents; the time allowed for only a small representation to speak from the hundreds in attendance.
The only opposition emanated from two representatives from The Valley Hospital and Englewood Hospital and Medical Center. Opponents since day one of PVH’s closing — determined to protect their new captive market share. Their views, so narrow, they couldn’t spare a moment to listen to the concerns of residents – leaving immediately after citing their opposition.
One only needs to read the opposition’s prepared statements, previously presented to the Dept. of Health, to know their undeniable motivation – money. Valley’s presentation was an offering of their assessment of myths vs. blinkered facts. While all their various conclusions can be argued, some seemed ludicrous to even suggest as valid arguments.
They acknowledged that their current “Renewal” (expansion) investment is meant to address the fact that they are, “the site of New Jersey’s second busiest hospital.” That enlightenment comes after they suggest they’d lose about $14 million in sales if PVH is allowed to reopen – about 2% of their gross sales.
AND this apparently justifies captivating their market by noting, “that generally acceptable drive times are 30 minutes.” While such an argument may be relative in the outback of Australia or in low populated areas, Bergen County is densely populated with a poor public transportation infrastructure and is a congested traffic nightmare in bad weather during rush hour. To review their presentation CLICK HERE.
Englewood Hospital’s opposition paper to the DOH is certainly more comprehensive with a couple of hundred pages of exhibits, but it too is focused on their economic future, not public need in the north corner of the County. If you read their paper they cite a potential lost of $17 million in revenue compared to Valley’s assessment that EHMC would only see a lost of $9 million. Either way it’s less then 5% of EHMC gross sales; certainly not enough to suggest irreparable harm if the PVH site saw a small acute care facility reopened. To review their report, less exhibits, CLICK HERE.
There were also support comments presented to the DOH in the form of resident and politician letters, but the only independent support report of substance is provided by the Westwood Taxpayers Alliance, a group initiated by Bruce Meisel, a local banker and businessman. It offers an overview of the hospital site’s history and need. To review CLICK HERE.
Ultimately, the argument comes down, in my opinion, to one of geographic access need. Without a fair opportunity for access to trauma healthcare, people’s lives will suffer. Someone’s heart muscle will eventually die if travel time is to be placed second to dollars. Brain injuries will risk diminished function, if gambled in delayed traffic to accommodate what – a single digit percentage point in gross sales – over timely trauma access?
In December of 2007, at the certificate of need closing meeting, only one voice spoke in support of the license extension in Trenton. This time one voice won’t be enough. The Nov. 29th meeting will end with a decision and that decision necessitates a clear display of public support.
UPDATE – Nov. 22nd – HUMC scores a victory (Click HERE to read article) – State health department staff recommend in favor of a reopened hospital in Westwood. The Nov. 29 meeting will apparently discuss that staff recommendation.
Thank you for all your efforts which you have put in this. really fascinating information.
Comment by twist comfort — November 17, 2011 @ 8:23 PM
Those opposition reports don’t deal with the things I heard at the meeting. Maybe the opposition should have hung around and really listened.
Comment by Jeffery K — November 18, 2011 @ 10:25 AM
I heard that Valley reached out to HUMC and offered to replace that Legacy as a partner but got a no thank you. Maybe they’re realizing there’s a need for a hospital.
Comment by MarieNP — November 19, 2011 @ 5:59 PM
Unlikely that Valley would attempt anything other then seek to collaborate on a healthcare mall.
Comment by Dirk — November 21, 2011 @ 8:16 AM
Why do you care? HUMC has it covered. Its got all its puppets in place. It gave your mayor’s wife a job so his strings are tight. It got the governor to appoint a friendly advocate in the commissioner’s seat. I heard they’re robo calling for seat fillers for buses. They’ll fill them with seniors in for a free breakfast and lunch day trip. The 29th will be a show with your decision already bagged.
Comment by GlenRocked — November 21, 2011 @ 12:26 PM
Will the decision be made on the 29th?
Comment by Sandy — November 21, 2011 @ 3:38 PM
I don’t know about the hospital reopening future but it seems the Ridgewood Council will make a decision on Valley Hospital’s expansion plans at their Nov. 29th meeting. Nov. 30th should offer some interesting news.
Comment by aNONymous — November 22, 2011 @ 11:23 AM
No need to wait till the 30th. Valleys plans of exploiting PVH’s closure are done. Ridgewood won’t vote on Valleys renewal plan.
Comment by Resident — November 24, 2011 @ 1:19 PM
According to today’s Record it wasn’t a good day for Valley Hospital yesterday. The Department of Health supported HUMC’s request to reopen Pascack Valley Hospital and the Ridgewood Council stated it would vote against Valley’s expansion plans. All in all a good day for Westwood’s fight.
Comment by JamesV — November 23, 2011 @ 7:30 AM
hi i found your site today and read some awesome articles here. I just wanna thanks you for sharing it. it helps to understand whats with our hospital!
Comment by sax — November 23, 2011 @ 12:20 PM
In the papers it looks like the shoes have swapped feet. Valley’s on the defensive with their renewal and Hackensack’s sun is rising. Works for me.
Comment by He770 — November 23, 2011 @ 6:01 PM
The paper reads that the DOH Board endorsed the hospital reopening. I’m surprised we’re at this doorstep. I wonder if another legal card will slam it shut again or is this thing finally over?
Comment by WartenW — November 24, 2011 @ 10:12 AM