The San Jose local Council will not obstruct HCA Healthcare’s plans to construct a new facility at Good Samaritan Hospital, despite recent criticism from some local officials regarding the health provider’s prior service cuts.
Instead, in the face of strong opposition from patients, labor organizations, and medical professionals, the City Council unanimously approved rezoning the hospital’s campus Tuesday, enabling it to proceed with the permitting process to construct new facilities that adhere to state seismic law.
“Delaying a seismic retrofit and rebuild of a hospital that has provided tremendous health services for so many in our community is not going to solve the lack of behavioral health capacity in our community,” stated San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan.
In order to comply with seismic regulations that take effect on January 1, 2030, HCA will have to rebuild all but one of the buildings on Good Samaritan’s campus due to the age of the majority of its facilities.
The state might cancel Good Samaritan’s permission to provide acute care beds in the absence of the seismic retrogrades, which would further tax the healthcare system. According to HCA’s estimates, the redevelopment will cost $1.2 billion, with the existing hospital continuing to function while building is underway.
In addition to maintaining the thousands of jobs already at the hospital, the new project might provide 1,000 construction jobs.
In a statement to The Mercury News, Good Samaritan Hospital expressed gratitude for the San Jose City Council’s approval of its proposed $1.2 billion investment to comply with the state’s seismic safety regulations. The sustained availability of critical community healthcare for our 55,045 annual patients, both now and in the future, depends on this investment. We are extremely grateful for the Council’s decision and the San Jose community’s outstanding support.
When Kaiser Permanente got the go-ahead to begin building a new hospital in South San Jose last month, the city approved a similar project.
In order to expand the permitted floor sizes for the new hospital, HCA initially attempted to rezone the site. Before starting building, the business must still obtain its permits.
However, in the run-up to Tuesday’s meeting, HCA faced fierce opposition from community organizations, planning commissioners, and even members of the City Council because they believed that it prioritized profits over patient care, harming the health system, rather than treating its application as a straightforward land-use issue like Kaiser’s project.
Following a flurry of comments criticizing HCA’s business methods, the city’s planning commission opted last month in a symbolic vote not to recommend approval of the Good Samaritan project.
In a similar vein, HCA was singled out by a coalition of community advocacy groups called Rescue Our Medical Care for its prior service cuts at several Santa Clara County facilities.
They were still thinking about the trauma unit at Regional Medical Center in East San Jose being downgraded, which led to the county buying the hospital to restore services.
The group also mentioned the closure of the maternity department at Regional Medical Center, the closure of San Jos Medical Center, and the removal of acute psychiatric beds at another facility.
The campaign had called for HCA to reinstate the acute psychiatric beds and establish a patient protection fund because of concerns about a possible cutback in services at Good Samaritan Hospital.
Darcie Green, executive director of Latinas Contra Cancer, stated, “I’m not against the development.” I oppose giving HCA, the corporation, carte blanche to degrade our standard of living and introduce health disparities in this community where they wouldn’t otherwise exist. Fair access to healthcare is a key component of our overall strategy. The city’s goal of a connected, healthy community with access to necessary services is undermined by HCA’s closures and divestitures.
District 5 Councilmember Peter Ortiz had tried to postpone the proceedings out of sympathy for the cause and to give HCA officials more time to meet with neighborhood people and hear their wishes. Additionally, Ortiz claimed that the city might take HCA’s prior conduct into account when making decisions.
When making decisions about land use, the council has the right and duty to take into account the community’s benefit from a healthcare organization, Ortiz stated. Furthermore, the general plan requires us to encourage growth that addresses the healthcare requirements of the city’s residents—not just those in a specific area, but the entire city—and to ensure that there are no negative impacts on the county’s overall healthcare system.
But the office of the city attorney disagreed.
According to Deputy City Attorney Johnny Phan, “we do have a lot of policies that are very broad, but in the end, the decision has to tie back to the location, the neighborhood, the site, and this particular use.”
Although HCA admitted to cutting back on inpatient psychiatric treatments, the business stated that, in the right situation, it would think about reintroducing those services to the hospital. However, the shortage of psychiatrists to address the county’s behavioral health needs made matters worse.
According to Jackie Van Blaricum, president of HCA’s Far West Division, “there is a shortage of 61 psychiatrists in this community right now to meet the needs, so I think collectively we need to figure out how to fill that deficit so we can meet the needs.” It goes beyond the beds. It all comes down to the doctors helping those patients.
In order to promote operational discussion and guarantee that the hospital is a good steward, HCA has also expressed support for the establishment of a community advisory group, similar to those seen at other hospitals.
Although the project is exempt from commercial linkage fees, HCA has agreed to pay the city $3 million for emergency interim housing and affordable housing development as part of the community benefits package negotiated by District 9 Councilmember Pam Foley.
According to Foley, there is no denying the connection between housing and health care. I view these funds as both housing and health funds because I believe that those who live in stable housing will have better health outcomes.
Note: Thank you for visiting our website! We strive to keep you informed with the latest updates based on expected timelines, although please note that we are not affiliated with any official bodies. Our team is committed to ensuring accuracy and transparency in our reporting, verifying all information before publication. We aim to bring you reliable news, and if you have any questions or concerns about our content, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
