North Bay Business Journal

Wednesday, April 23, 2014, 2:53 pm

Palm Drive board sets April 28 closure, but agrees to more talks


Print Friendly Print Friendly    

Share this item

    Palm Drive Hospital

    SEBASTOPOL — The governing board of Palm Drive Hospital voted unanimously Wednesday to close the hospital April 28 as planned, while  voting unanimously to continue further and immediate talks with the Palm Drive Health Care Foundation over its long-term proposal to keep Palm Drive viable in some capacity.

    While a last-ditch plan for survival could in theory occur between now and Monday, the board agreed, despite continued opposition from scores of residents, that it needs to focus on a safe and orderly closure for existing patients.

    The board met at noon Wednesday to discuss both the foundation proposal and one from another prominent physician, Sebastopol orthopedist Michael Bollinger, but the focus was primarily on the foundation proposal, crafted with telemedicine specialist James Gude and former district board president Dan Smith.

    The vote to move forward with closure at the end of this week follows the second Chapter 9 bankruptcy filing in seven years for the 37-bed hospital, with the district board once again claiming insolvency, which led to an approval of a “substantial closure of services” about two weeks ago.

    The board said the 71-page proposal by Dr. Gude, Mr. Smith and the foundation was largely unworkable because of cash restraints, though it noted that the proposal was comprehensive and useful given how quickly it was put together.

    “Although the foundation proposal includes a well-intended, interesting and well-thought-out plan, given the short turnaround time-frame provided, it is not financially feasible as presented,” read a memo from district staff to the board.

    The proposal also doesn’t address the hospital’s desperate need for cash and instead relied on projections from accounts receivable to be used for start-up costs on the foundation model. But the board and attorneys for the district repeatedly told a capacity crowd of about 200 people that any reserves and incoming cash needs to be directed toward covering Chapter 9 bankruptcy proceedings and paying off nearly $7 million owed to vendors.

    “Neither the proposal nor the cash flow projections address the costs associated with the Chapter 9 case an any anticipated plan of debt adjustment that would need to be approved by the bankruptcy court,” the memo states. 

    The vote to close the facility on April 28 came as an amendment to a broader resolution, backed unanimously, to continue talks with the foundation to see if the shortcomings in its proposal could be overcome, or if a longer-term, post-closure plan could emerge. The vote also came amid continued protests and pleas  from residents, hospital staff and physicians concerned about  access to health care and emergency care for residents across wide swaths of western Sonoma County.

    After the meeting,  hospital CEO Tom Harlan, clearly appearing tired, said he thought it was the right decision.

    “I think it’s the right outcome,” he said. “We will re-emerge. I can understand the emotions of the community. I live here too.”

    The proposal from the  foundation would have effectively shuttered the 35-bed inpatient ward of the hospital while preserving a two-bed intensive care unit, three inpatient beds and the emergency department. It would also create new lines of revenue in specialty care such as telemedicine, physical therapy, neurology and infusion and make a strong shift toward outpatient care.

    But more issues were identified with the proposal by the board, including  a potential conflict of interest with Dr. Gude, who had proposed to serve as CEO under the new foundation structure. 

    “A significant impediment to the foundation assumption of management authority is the proposal to place a CEO (Dr. Gude) who already has substantial contractual services under agreement with the district,” the memo states.

    Dr. Gude, who runs a telemedicine practice, OffsiteCare, said he was happy to pass the CEO role onto someone without the conflict.

    The proposal by Dr. Bollinger would have similarly closed the inpatient ward, offering intensive care, radiology, laboratory and outpatient specialty services, and would have allowed physicians to lease the hospital for $1 a year. A third party would have managed the facility.

    The district and Mr. Harlan had also cited licensing concerns with the state in considering the two proposals. In order to operate an emergency room, all hospitals must have adequate inpatient services, along with labs, radiology, an ICU, and acute inpatient care and outpatient services.

    By closing on April 28, Palm Drive  would be letting its acute-care hospital license be suspended, not revoked. Numerous proposals have been floated to see what the district could do afterwards to fulfill the health care needs in the region, including 24-7 urgent care and other outpatient services.

    Palm Drive last week was granted a $450,000 emergency loan from a U.S. bankruptcy court judge. It will help the cash-strapped hospital make payroll and meet operating expenses through bankruptcy proceedings. A final bankruptcy hearing is scheduled for May 1.

    Over the past 12 months, finances at Palm Drive have deteriorated. Accounts payable for Palm Drive increased to nearly $6.5 million at the end of February from about $5.8 million in June 2013, according to Mr. Harlan. He cited an October audit of the hospital prepared by Moss Adams for the 2012–2013 fiscal years. Accounts payable increased by nearly 75 percent since 2012.

    The hospital also owes vendors roughly $7 million, according to the Chapter 9 filing. Major creditors include Utah-based Innovasis, a developer of spine implant devices that is owed more than $1.6 million; San Francisco-based McKesson Technologies, which is owed just shy of $1 million; and PG&E, which is owed about $334,000. Total liabilities were $9.6 million, up 54.8 percent from fiscal year 2012 and even more in the first months of fiscal year 2014, hospital officials said.

    Copyright © 1988–2015 North Bay Business Journal
    View the policy for linking to website content.

    Print Friendly Print Friendly    


    1 Comment

    1. June 25, 2014, 10:02 am

      by Sparky

      The District Board says that the Palm Drive Health Care District does not have to operate a hospital and can do pretty much what it wants with your tax dollars. See for yourself.

      The district’s founding charter approved by voters states: “The purpose of the district is to ensure local access to emergency, acute care and other medical services to residents and visitors of the district area.”

      The parcel tax ballot initiative passed by voters states: “To ensure survival of Palm Drive Hospital and access to local emergency, acute care, medical and physician services, and provide for ongoing expenses, repair and improvements to equipment and technology, shall Palm Drive Health Care District repeal its existing tax and levy a special tax of up to $155.00 on each taxable parcel in the District (excluding low value parcels) while assuring independent fiscal oversight and financial accountability?”

    Submit Your Comments


    Required, will not be published

    Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments and Letters Policy. To share this item by email or social media, use the links above.

    Do not use this form to contact people, companies or organizations mentioned in this story. Contact them directly. Private messages left here will be deleted.