Guest
Column Return
to "News Stories about LHH and SFGH" Index
West of Twin Peaks Observer
February 2008
Downsizing
Laguna Honda: Who Gets the Boot?
by Patrick Monette-Shaw
"Where Will
They Go? What Will They Do?"
"No on
Proposition D" Campaign Flyer Mailed to Voters in Spring
2006
 |
 |
Click photo to
enlarge |
The mailer
falsely claimed
300 patients would be
"evicted" from Laguna
Honda if Prop D passed.
Nothing was farther
from the truth. |
Where
is the No on D Committee and its outrage now that
112 residents
in LHH’s Clarendon Hall are
suddenly being
transferred during a
budget-cutting measure? |
The No
on D Committee,
backed by Mayor Gavin Newsom,
are, ironically, nowhere
to be found, and aren't asking where Laguna Honda
residents will go, and
what they will do. |
In last November's Observer, John Farrell, San Franciscans
for Laguna Honda chair, noted that radically reducing the number
of skilled nursing beds at Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) would place
our elderly and physically disabled in danger of not receiving
proper care. His prediction is dangerously close to rapid implementation.
In the November 1999 election, 139,210 San Franciscans —
73.3 percent of 190,019 casting ballots — approved bond financing
to rebuild 1,200 beds at LHH for the elderly and disabled. LHH
supplies one-third of San Francisco's skilled nursing beds.
Voters know LHH's residents are among the most vulnerable San
Franciscans, in part because they're dependent on nursing home
caregivers for their day-to-day safety and well-being, and because
95 percent rely on Medi-Cal for their care; fewer San Francisco
nursing homes are accepting Medi-Cal patients. Since 2002, LHH
has admitted 3,199 patients, including at least 611 who have had
strokes, traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, or orthopedic
disorders, like hip fractures, and scores of others with Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's, and Multiple Scerlosis.
In 2006, the "No on D" Committee backed by Newsom
administration allies raised nearly $300,000 to defeat Proposition
D, hiring the same political consultants — Barnes Mosher
Whitehurst Lauter and Partners — that Mayor Newsom and SEIU
use. BMWH, reportedly paid $173,000, developed the campaign mailer
riddled with disinformation shown above, falsely asserting 300
Alzheimer's patients would be evicted if Prop. D passed.
Now, just six Plaintiffs in the Chambers vs. City and County
of San Francisco lawsuit are about to overturn the will of
139,000 voters if San Francisco accepts the settlement agreement.
There's been a virtual media blackout regarding this lawsuit,
and there's been no public forums sponsored by the City or LHH
since the case was filed on October 12, 2006 by six LHH residents
and their lead organizational plaintiff, Independent Living Resource
Center of San Francisco in collaboration with Protection and Advocacy,
Inc. (PAI).
Among other provisions, the Chambers settlement proposes
that upon completion of the reconstruction project, the City agrees
to restrict LHH to 780 beds — eliminating 420 planned beds
— and LHH will focus on 90-day short-stay and rehabilitation
patients. The Chambers settlement doesn't specify LHH can
continue its long-term care mission. Where will vulnerable elderly
San Franciscans needing long-term care go? Out of county?
The Health Commission voted in closed session January 22 to
accept the Chambers settlement, knowing San Francisco faces
a potential shortage of 4,000 skilled nursing beds in the next
12 years and 10,000 Alzheimer's patients over the age of 85 by
the year 2020. Apparently alarmed by public testimony linking
future bond measures to failure to rebuild LHH as promised, Health
Commissioner's took an unusual step, disclosing a Deputy City
Attorney advised them during closed session that some language
in the Chambers settlement doesn't really mean what it
says it plain English. But the rationale offered to reassure community
members is Orwellian, using unbelievable, twisted logic even PAI
disputes.
The Chambers settlement proposes San Francisco will
create 500 rental subsidies — 100 annually over five years
— to discharge residents slowly. Health Commissioner's reportedly
proposed during closed session to rapidly fast-track LHH's downsizing
to 780 beds, displacing 240 residents two years prematurely, in
the absence of a Board of Supervisors policy decision to do so.
This will occur partly through attrition (deaths and transfers),
through aggressive discharge planning, and by curtailing general
skilled nursing admissions for long-term care. LHH is expected
to submit a fiscal year 08–09 budget revision based on a
780-resident census, and concomitant reduction in staffing, involving
layoffs.
Why aren't Newsom's allies now asking "Where will our
vulnerable elderly go, and what will they do, without Laguna Honda?"
Will the City of St. Francis strip thousands of San Franciscans
of their right to choose long-term care at LHH?
Since 240 residents face rapid discharge, out-of-county placement,
and unknown levels of care, get involved and take action: Call
or write to the Health Commission, Board of Supervisors, and Mayor
Newsom urging them to reject the Chambers settlement.
Patrick Monette-Shaw
is a Skilled Nursing and
Healthcare Accountability Advocate
Top
Return to "News Stories about LHH and
SFGH" Index
_______
Copyright (c) 2008 by Committee to Save LHH. All rights
reserved. This work may not be reposted anywhere on the
Web, or reprinted in any print media, without express written
permission. E-mail the Committee
to Save LHH.
