Sharper Focus

We’ve been writing about the Sonoma Valley Hospital, that is, about keeping the hospital, as long as our paper has been here. Most of our editorials on that topic have been titled, appropriately, “Whither the Hospital.”
Perhaps we need to sharpen our focus.
Building something big and new and beautiful and modern would be fun. We could argue over size and layout and location – and we have. We could promote it to encourage more doctors to practice here – and we have. Meanwhile, we’ve expected the hospital business just to keep rolling along, and that’s been a problem. Cash flow is tight, because getting and keeping doctors in town has been difficult, with the uncertainty about future facilities. They’re the ones who do the procedures at the hospital and make the referrals for imaging and tests.
Fortunately, the man at the helm, CEO Carl Gerlach, loves operational management, and evidently he’s made some major improvements in that area. But the existing facility is not new (or big or beautiful or modern). Members of the staff there are making do with what they have, upgrading elements from time to time as necessity dictates or funding allows.
But we, as a community, need to recognize that several systems in the hospital facility at the present location need upgrading. The focus in the last few years on acquiring and developing real estate had led to the impression that present operations didn’t need much attention: “They’ll all be gone in 2013, anyway, when the new hospital is built.” That’s the year, of course, by which community hospitals in California have to meet stricter seismic standards.
Well, that date is history, as they say. The new deadline, effectively, is 2020, and we’re skeptical that the state would really shut down a hospital even then. So our focus needs to hone in on the present operation; the community will need to rely on that for years to come. We chatted recently with a board member who suggested that a ballot measure soon would be a good idea. We agree. As soon as it is practical, a bond measure big enough to upgrade the infrastructure at our existing facility should be put on our ballots. We don’t know what the dollar amount should be, but we think it’ll be helpful to get the focus off real estate and placed where it belongs – on quality patient care.
Will it pass? Voters have consistently supported the hospital, when given that chance. What failed to garner enough votes were measures focused more on real estate than on operations. Choose any location and somebody will complain, but who can reasonably object to upgrading outdated or deteriorated infrastructure?
And sooner is better to avoid a focus on politics, too. That could become a distraction if the bond measure is on the ballots in November. It’s not just those folks running for U.S. President; it’s also the folks who will be running for seats on the hospital board (three terms are up in November). Recent board elections have been competitive, and the campaigning could well draw the focus away from what would otherwise be a clear choice on a bond. And while a November ballot would ensure a high voter turnout, so too would an active campaign, making the case before the voters that upgrading the present facility is critical.
The hospital has cried “Wolf!” before, and so it might be tempting to postpone any expenditures. The figures, though, make a clear case that the need is immediate. It is a compelling story, one that should be told.
We suggested that the board should take action “as soon as it is practical.” How about the meeting scheduled for May 28? That’d put a bond measure on a ballot in August. Works for us!