Is the Long-Term Care Coordinating Council
Unfairly Picking on Laguna Honda Hospital?

Note:  Most links on this page are to PDF files; please start Adobe Acrobat before following any links.

This page focuses on actions affecting Laguna Honda Hospital that are being taken by the Mayor’s Long-Term Care Coordinating Council.  Readers should note that no representative from the City’s long-term care facility known as Laguna Honda Hospital has been included on this planning council, despite three nominations of LHH staff that were submitted to the Mayor.



LTCCC Resolution 1-012005
February 17, 2005
This resolution notes that even if 940 units of supporting housing is developed as recommended by the 2000 Consolidated Housing Plan, the supportive housing would not address all of the demand for such housing. The resolution also notes that housing with services is the cornerstone of a continuum of care.  This resolution also asserts that the 1999 bond measure to rebuild Laguna Honda authorized the construction of a “minimum of 140 units of assisted living” beds at LHH [emphasis added].  This is untrue!  The language in Proposition A — including the summary contained on page 33 of the 1999 voter guide, the Digest prepared by the Ballot Simplification Committee on page 33, and the actual language of the proposition contained in Section 7 on page 55 — did not specify a raw number of assisted living beds.  The City maintains that there was nothing in Proposition A that promised 1,2000 skilled nursing beds, and the same people who crafted the vague language of Prop A were devious enough to have not included a raw number for either types of beds. And certainly, there is noting in Prop A that said a “minimum” of 140 assisted living beds would be built; Prop A says only … reconstruction of a new health care, assisted living and/or other type of continuing care facility or facilities” would be built to replace LHH.  Therefore, this Resolution seeks after-the-fact to change the actual language of what the voters approved in 1999 by creatively introducing new language (both “minimum” and “140”) that the voters had not approved.

LTCCC Resolution 2-042105
April 11, 2005
This resolution “Resolves” that any General Fund savings that result from “replacing LHH with a smaller facility” be used to provide ongoing support for community-based services, instead.  The resolution, without a scrap of evidence attached to it to support this wild claim, states that for each 100 beds that can be reduced at LHH, $36 million can be “redirected” from LHH to community-based services, annually.  Notably, LHH receives approximately $28 million annually in General Fund subsidies, so how the LTCCC figures it can save $36 million annually in General Fund savings illustrates this Council may be math-challenged.  And absent any oversight provision in this Resolution to ensure the LHH savings will actually go towards community-based services illustrates that there is no guarantee any LHH “savings” will actually go where promised.

LTCCC Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2005
The minutes of the March 17 LTCC discusses the LHH Replacement Project Update report presented to the Health Commission on March 15.  These minutes wrongly claim that DPH intends to rebuild two [new] buildings at LHH that “will total 500 beds.”  This is untrue; the report presented to the Health Commission indicate that only 360 new beds will be built [Source: page 19 of the Replacement Project Update Report prepared by Michael Lane, project manager].  The minutes also state that there is only a $84 million cost overrun, but several SEIU unions have been told in a briefing that the project has a cost overrun of $130 million. These minutes also indicate that the LTCCC will discuss the implications of scaling LHH back from 1,200 beds to only 500 during its April 21 meeting.

LTCCC Meeting Agenda
April 21, 2005
The LTCCC’s agenda for April 21 lists only “VI.. Discussion and Proposed Action: Laguna Honda Hospital and Related Issues.”  This is completely vague, and does not describe either what the discussion will be about, or what the proposed action being considered entails, both of which violate the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance.  It should be noted that the LTCCC has previously discussed whether it is subject to the Sunshine Ordinance (which it clearly is, given that it is an policy advisory body to the Mayor), and whether provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance applies to the LTCCC.  



Copyright (c) 2005 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.