Broadlands Hospital Approved!

I hope so and support it. Lets' build it in your development. Better access to 7 etc.

 

Welcome back Donna, good to see you are as feisty as ever.

 

Thanks AFGM, I'll take that as a compliment. It's nice to be back, just wish we were talking about something else.

 

It is a compliment. Good debate, always leads to good decisions.

 

Hi Everyone, well here we go again...As in the past you all have done a great job in voicing your opinions and directing that anger and concern to the right people. That effort and determination is needed again. We need you to write letters and once again voice your opposition to this most drastic decision change from the State Health Commissioner. We need you to send those letters also to the media and the BOS. If you have any questions or need letter topics please don't hesitate to contact me: (703) 723-6911 or Dmfortier@erols.com. As always THANK YOU for getting involved. Donna Fortier

 

Comments were made in the past that LHC being a non-profit hospital was so great in treating charity cases and HCA being a for-profit hospital was not. The facts discovered during the recent COPN approval process don't seem to support those comments.

In the LHC recommendation letter to Dr. Stroube, Douglas R. Harris, J.D., Adjudication Officer, noted the following about LHC:

"Regarding financial accessibility, the record establishes that LHC’s contribution to charity care was well below the regional average in 2000 and 2001, as shown in the table on page 25 of the DCOPN combined staff report."

In the BRMC II recommendation letter to Dr. Stroube, Douglas R. Harris, J.D., Adjudication Officer, noted the following about HCA:

"Regarding financial accessibility, the record establishes that HCA, the ultimate owner of NVHC and Dominion, has recently implemented a new indigent health care policy, offering free health care for all uninsured patients living on incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, and graduated benefits thereafter for families living at up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level."

 

And, regarding competition (as opposed to protecting LHC's monoply -- my words, not Mr. Harris'), Douglas R. Harris, J.D., Adjudication Officer, noted the following in his HCA recommendation letter:

"In Broadlands I, LHC presented testimony asserting that construction of BRMC would increase market concentration in the existing health care system located in Loudoun and western Fairfax counties by strengthening the market position of HCA, to the detriment of LHC. In Broadlands II, NVCH presented testimony that the bulk of market concentration in PD 8 results from the position enjoyed by the several hospitals that comprise the Inova Health System, not HCA. In testimony elicited from a former Virginia secretary of health and human resources, NVCH asserts that The issue is competition, not the competitors in the market. The law and the regulations make it clear that COPN is not designed to protect an individual incumbent in the market but rather to look at the effect on competition in the market. . . . [T]here are often winners and losers in any COPN decision, but that doesn’t mean . . . [competitors] are harmed. . . .

...

The introduction of BRMC, assuming it would achieve projected levels of utilization, would rebalance resources in PD 8 and inject some competition into its western portion. BRMC would share a substantial, overlapping service area with LHC, Inova Fair Oaks Hospital and Reston Hospital Center (located in western Fairfax County and also owned by HCA). At the IFC, LHC sought to draw parallels with at least two specific instances in the U.S. where a corporation, unrelated to any involved here, constructed a hospital near an existing one, to its financial and operational detriment. Certainly, some financial effect would be experienced by LHC, but these instances of market encroachment, to which LHC alludes, are not parallel to the circumstances reasonably arising from the BRMC proposal. Substantial population growth and development should continue, allowing the prospect of two viable hospitals serving Loudoun County from within its borders, and LHC has taken and should be able to take additional opportunities to mitigate against erosion of its patient volumes.

A near-complete reassignment of service area, as contemplated by the proposed project, normally entails two main issues: (i) Whether a proposed relocation of services (and sometimes a location of services) unduly infringes upon nearby providers of health care services, many of which have shown considerable historical commitment to the health of citizens already served, and (ii) whether such a relocation has been reasonably crafted to address a demonstrated maldistribution of facilities and services. While the Commissioner should reserve the latitude to base a future denial of an application on such systemic considerations, approval of Broadlands II appears likely to engender beneficial competitive effects and serve the interests of sound health planning by locating a state-of-the-art facility in a an area of historically-phenomenal, and still-continuing, population growth.

Last year, HSANV contended that insulating one hospital in Loudoun County – LHC – would allow it to introduce a broader array of services and grow to a desirable size and level of sophistication, thereby serving the community interest. In the intervening year, population growth and development in western PD 8 has continued, indicating a future population sufficient in size to support the continued viability of all hospitals in the area. In addition, new evidence has been submitted suggesting that the effect of BRMC on LHC would not be irretrievably harmful and suggesting that competition may have an overall beneficial effect in meeting public need.

Upon review of the entire record, including the transcript of the IFC and the staff reports regarding this project, I believe that sufficient data and information substantiate the recommendation made below, and that the proposed project conforms appropriately to this statutory consideration. Reference to the record is made and reliance on administrative precedent is asserted."

 

Greg, Greg, Greg...There's a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.

 

You don't need to sell the bridge to Greg, sell it to Dr. Stroube.

 

Donna,

Did you leave your job at Loudoun Hospital? Are you now working for the Brooklyn Bridge?

I thought you had just gotten started at your paid position, selling and promoting the interests of Loudoun Hospital.

Didn't know you had jumped careers so quickly.

 

Donna, instead of trying to mock what Greg posted, provide us with a differing opinion or contrary facts.

In the past, I would read your posts with interest as you made some valid points and I truly felt you were more concerned with protecting Broadlands then protecting LHC. Now that your are an employee of LHC I doubt that is the case.

Not that I would blame you if it is,

 

Donna,

Maybe Mr. Harris and Dr. Stroube thought LHC was trying to sell a bridge in Brooklyn with their arguments against HCA??

 

Seems to me that the hospital was mainly approved because of HCA's sudden new found philanthropism. That's awful nice and I'm sure not motivated by the money they'll make of what is one of the wealthiest communities in the world. What I want to know is what happens when they stop the program and start back pedaling on all the changes they made in the recent COPN. If they prove me wrong I'll be happy but big business has nothing to do with community.

 

I will be posting answers to questions posted. I would like to state FOR THE RECORD that any post I do place on here or any other website are MY VIEWS (as they always have been) and not those of the hospitals. I have always put the Broadlands safety and concerns above any other issue and will continue to do what I and the Many many others that I am helping to represent think is in the best interest of our neighborhood and community. This is the first time my dedication to this community has ever been a thought. If you have any concerns about my ability to ONCE AGAIN handle this issue for those neighbors that are AGAINST this plan, please email me.

 

Speaking of signatures. There is a version of this forum that allows graphic signatures. Any plans to implement?

 

For all the NIMBYs out there.
The way I see it, eventually SOMETHING will be built there and there are far worse things than a hospital. Say the hospital is shot down, then what? Do you think the developer will turn it into a park? No, the developer will look for another buyer. Who knows what will happen then. Car dealer? Another strip mall? Gee, wouldn't that be wonderful? As the saying goes be careful what you wish for.

 

I tend to agree. I am new to the debate, but it seems to me that a modest-sized hospital (160 beds hardly seems huge) would not be that big a deal. It's not like it's in the middle of our community (it's on the edge, from what I gather). It's close to the highway, allowing easy access for most of the users. And how can it be bad to have an emergency room within a couple of miles of our homes?

Traffic will certainly increase, but it would increase with an industrial park/strip mall, too. I have seen a few posts using "scare tactics" (discarded medical waste??? Give me a break!!!), but other than that I haven't seen a strong argument why there should not be a hospital in that location, as opposed to some other large commercial facility.

Would someone care to enlighten me?

 

Please don't forget that this original bed count is ONLY PHASE ONE!!! HCA is planning to have more phases follow with additional beds added...