Testimony of Paul Newell to
NYS Public Health and Health Planning Council
Committee on Establishment and Project Review
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Thank you Chairperson and Council members for this opportunity, and your service on this board.
My name is Paul Newell. I testify before you today as steering committee member of The Coalition for a New Village Hospital. At the previous hearing, you heard testimony from other Coalition Steering Committee Members, attorney Yetta Kurland Dr. David Kaufman.
In addition to my work with the Coalition, I am the elected Democratic District Leader for Lower Manhattan and a lifelong health activist in New York, in Southern Africa and elsewhere.
I am here to ask you to deny Lenox Hill’s petition for a 2-bed facility. Ms Kurland and Dr. Kaufman have already testified extensively, so I will try briefly highlighting a few concerns.
1) The Community has repeatedly, emphatically and nearly unanimously expressed its opposition to this plan as mere window dressing for unwanted residential development. While that aspect clearly falls outside your mandate, it would not serve New York well for this body to act as a facilitator of development as opposed to a guardian of public health.
Extremely serious legal concerns remain about the process and substance of this proposal. An existing Certificate of Operations is still valid and in place. This council should hesitate long before invalidating a certificate for a full-service 700 bed hospital – one reaffirmed just 2 years ago – and replacing it with a 2-Bed urgent care center.
2) Serious medical and public health concerns remain as well. Already, the applicants have severely misrepresented the services and capabilities of the proposed facility. These representations themselves could prove a community health risk as residents, tourists and area workers may come to the facility for services it cannot provide.
No answer has yet been provided to the question of transfer time from this facility to full-service hospital and if that time complies with dictates law and good policy.
3) Viable alternatives – alternatives that include full service hospitals – are available. Alternatives proposed by the community in conjunction with established, credible service providers. These should be thoroughly vetted before such a serious diminution of healthcare is approved.
In short, there is a site, a structure and millions of dollars of medical infrastructure at the location of St. Vincent’s. There are revenue streams available from the federal government, especially given the strategic location of the hospital. There are other funds that can be brought in to make a viable financial package. A hospital, properly run, will not lose money.
Big changes are coming to the United State’s health care system. Over the next decade, the population of uninsured Americans will drop by 80 percent and billions of dollars in new revenue will come on line. These changes will add more pressure to our overtaxed infrastructure – and provide new financial resources. A new village hospital will play a vital role.
There are hospitals that are well-managed in our city, as well as competent managers that can run a new hospital if the DOH allows it. The community has stated clearly that it opposes the proposed plan. However, in the event the Council chooses not to reject this plan, we propose two potential compromises.
The actors in this plan have asserted that it would be cost prohibitive to build a hospital. However, they are prepared to put forward an entire building and $125 million to build the urgent care center. According to leading experts in hospital engineering, for the same or similar cost a smaller 200 to 300 bed hospital could be built.
Plan 1
Add two to four floors on the O’Toole building. This would resolve some of the community burden of the dramatic upzoning proposed for the other side of the street. More importantly, this would provide ample space for a 200-300 bed hospital at this site – thereby fulfilling the obligation of this Council and this Department to the existing Certificate of Need, and the the health of New Yorkers.
Plan 2
Refurbish and repurpose the Coleman building on the East side of 7th Avenue. Refurbishing and existing medical facility is dramatically cheaper than building entirely new infrastructure. A smaller, 200-bed hospital can be built at the site where one stood for 160 years for similar cost basis to what is proposed in the petition before you today. This hospital could be financially viable – indeed profitable- in and of itself as well as freeing other lots for revenue producing uses. This plan likewise would enable this Council to fulfill its obligations.
In Summary, the petition before you today faces overwhelming community opposition, violates both New York State law and common sense, is of questionable health benefit at best and may indeed be of net detriment to the health of New Yorkers. It is the wrong plan for the site. The Coalition for a New Village Hospital calls upon you to deny – or at the very least defer – this petition.
Thank you.
PPS – I also submitted a 100 page memorandum from the Coalition.
