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

An astute, insightful member of the community wrote to Mayor Newsom and the Board of Supervisors on December 31, 2004 raising many valid concerns, but Mayor Newsom has failed to answer his correspondence for six weeks, just as the Mayor has failed for three months to follow up with Sister Miriam Walsh, LHH’s Director of Pastoral Care.  The Mayor promised Sister Miriam he would seek out additional information concerning LHH before forming a “mayoral vision” for LHH; he has broken that promise, using delaying tactics that are completely inexcusable.

The community member has again written the Mayor, and his letter is eloquent in describing and refuting inaccurate information being presented to the public. In his letter Howard Chabner, J.D. notes that:

• The Mayor has not stated publicly his position on LHH [just as Sister Miriam has also noted]
• The Olmstead decision requires reintegration into the community for those who so choose, but it must be done within reason, since Olmstead is not unlimited, or an “either/or” mandate.
• There is a severe shortage of wheelchair accessible housing in San Francisco
• LHH’s current Executive Administrator does not have a license as a licensed nursing home administrator, and has not authored any articles on long-term care and physical rehabilitation. [Note: The Social Security Act, which controls State law, specifies that nursing homes, whether or not distinct-part skilled nursing facilities, must have a licensed nursing home administrator.]
• The demographics of LHH’s patients has changed considerably, particularly during the past year, despite the spin control the City is issuing saying that LHH’s demographics have not changed appreciably.
• The sources of admission into LHH have changed dramatically in the past year, which has directly affected the changing patient demographics at LHH; this will lead, in future years, to fewer admissions of frail elderly and disabled San Franciscans into LHH.
• A December 2004 memo from Department of Public Health’s Chief Financial Officer does not take into account increased security costs in an analysis that claims SFGH will save “millions.” The methodology of the CFO’s financial impact analysis has been challenged as inaccurate.
• The admissions policy at LHH has changed such that people who are at home and truly need care at LHH but do not have an emergency situation are prioritized for admission lower than SFGH patients who are already in a medical facility.
• The “social rehabilitation” grant accepted by the Board of Supervisors ignores the fact that social rehabilitation is oriented toward people with psychiatric problems, not medical ones; LHH does not have a license for psychiatric patients. The social rehab grant is reportedly designed to close gaps in the continuum of care, but Mr. Chabner highlights that it will exacerbate, not close, the gaps.

The community and the Board of Supervisors should demand that Mayor Newsom answer the issues raised in Chabner’s letter.

Top

_______

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.