Comments on: UPDATED Kaiser declines renewal of Alameda Hospital contract

By: Jan

Jan — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:46:00 +0000

It is highly unlikely the state would close a hospital because of this seismic problem. There are hundreds of small (and some big) hospitals around California struggling with this, and the deadlines have been extended and other changes made to the program to accommodate them. The seismic issue is actually relatively minor compared with the issue of Alameda Hospital’s ability to operate in the black on a day-to-day basis. They were starting to do OK this last year, but that was in part because of Kaiser’s use of their facilities. They’ll have to get very competitive very quickly to make up for that. In other words, Alamedans need to be using Alameda Hospital.
As for closing the hospital, Alameda voters decided when they approved the parcel tax that a majority wanted to have a hospital on this side of the bridges and tunnels in case of an emergency. You can’t really have an emergency room without a hospital attached to it…otherwise it’s just a doctor’s office with extra equipment, like an urgent care center. Do you want to be able to do operations on people who need them right away, or to put them on a ventilator if their flu turns serious? Traumas already go elsewhere, so that’s not an issue. Heart attacks can be evaluated at Alameda Hospital and if the person needs angiography or angioplasty (sophisticated imaging or clearing arteries) they go elsewhere.
It’s a tough call…quick access to high-quality medical care costs money. Either we want Alameda Hospital to be a top-notch place where we’d all be willing to go, or we’re willing to go over the water. (maybe it would be cheaper to fill in the estuary the way it was before 1900, and move the Coast Guard to Alameda Point…just kidding, don’t get all excited, blogosphere)

By: H. Ewert

H. Ewert — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:41:20 +0000

The hospital has not been sustainable–the supplemental property tax is still in effect, even now with this “surplus” is the surplus including the money received from the supplemental property taxes–if so then after all these years the hospital falls short.

By: Dave Kirwin

Dave Kirwin — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:36:34 +0000

Perhaps the hospital is no longer sustainable.

It is my understanding that the hospital was supposed to have submitted a plan years ago to upgrade the seismic safety of the building but has failed to meet every deadline. Aside from the predicted operating loss returning with the departure of Kaiser, the Building is likely to be closed by the State because it does not meet seismic standards for hospitals and there is no money for such a facility upgrade.

Could it be sold for infill senior housing and the money used to build a smaller more efficient emergency care center to serve the community? If not, maybe the community needs to decide what is more important – local funding of schools, or an over-sized hospital operating at a loss until it is closed by the State.

By: Neal_J

Neal_J — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:13:18 +0000

Gracias. That’s a big hit to absorb.

By: Michele Ellson

Michele Ellson — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:34:29 +0000

Hey Neal,

Thanks for the question. I asked about this the other day and am waiting for the info.

Quick update – Info is up.

By: Neal_J

Neal_J — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:22:24 +0000

“It was not clear how much the contract was worth to the hospital.”

Why was this not clear?

I should think this would be both readily-availale and highly significant to the hospital’s bottom line.