Lack of charity - Page 2

Report says CPMC is extracting huge profits from San Francisco but doing little charity care

12.13.11 - 5:42 pm | Steven T. Jones and Nena Farrell |

(8)

CPMC is seeking to build a huge new hospital on Cathedral Hill

ARTIST RENDERING BY SMITHGROUP

"CPMC-St. Luke's is not only the most profitable hospital in San Francisco, but it is also the most profitable hospital in the Sutter Health statewide network. Out of twenty-one hospital groups within the Sutter Health network, CPMC/St.Luke's brought in nearly one quarter of Sutter Health's average net income over the last five years," the report reads.

But McCormack says Sutter reinvests its profits back into the system.

"It goes back into the system itself," he said. "It goes back into the hospital, into salaries, building new facilities, repairing old ones." Yet the activists are unconvinced. Even before this report on charity care, they were critical of a CPMC project that includes housing on Van Ness with low rates of affordability, and which they say doesn't rebuild St. Luke's large enough to meet the community's needs. It is also agreeing to operate St. Luke's for only 20 years. "I like to call it a stay of execution," said Jane Sandoval, who's been a nurse at St. Luke's for 26 years. "When CPMC took over with their master plan, it was an enigma to me how they concluded what the community needed. I know what the community needs, and I wonder who they asked."

Comments

Wasn't this posted last week?

Anyway, as we discussed then, CPMC is not under any obligation to provide any free or charitable work. So the fact that they do some should be commended, rather than criticized simply because some other entities do more.

And as you note, the city's own hospital - SFGH - does even less charity work. So much for the public model of healthcare.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 11:41 am

The display of ignorance here

The display of ignorance here is staggering. You'd think you were paid shill for CPMC but I know you're not, because you're always on here spouting similar views (though usually not this devoid of knowledge).

Why would SF General have to provide charity care? They make no money at all. They are funded by my tax dollars. CPMC doesn't pay ANY taxes on their 150m of profit a year, thereby taking money from me. When they don't provide charity care (as expected of nonprofit hospitals) they are pushing that burden to SF General where once again my tax dollars are being used.

As someone who is more conservative than me, why wouldn't you care that CPMC is taking money from you? Why wouldn't that concern you as a taxpayer?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 1:05 pm

I doubt you could have missed the point more.

Any hospital can give medical care without charging. Doesn't matter if it is private or public.

And, again, since you obviously missed the point - charitable giving is VOLUNTARY. As in, discretionary, optional and non-mandatory!!!

I'll take this slowly for you. No person or entity is ever obligated to do work for free. But if they choose to do so, we should thank them. And not compare them to another entity that may elect to give more.

See? It really wasn't that difficult to understand, was it?

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 2:07 pm

no actually

charity care is not voluntary because as a city we expect it, and we will require the highest achievable level of charity care from CPMC, if they expect to get our further approval - which we have every right to withhold from them if they don't

their past record is pathetic, and we are now quite rightly demanding better

Posted by anonymous on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 10:41 pm

You are too much. Its like

You are too much. Its like arguing constitutional law with someone who has never read the constitution before, but "feels" a certain way about it.

Here is some Thursday morning reading for you if you would like to engage with us on this topic further. You may not ideologically agree that a non-profit hospital should be required to provide charity care, but I don't ideologically agree that any entity that makes $142m a year should be a 501(c)(3) non-profit and avoid paying ANY taxes. They should be stripped of that status immediately.

They won't however, but they should improve their charity care levels at the very least.

SF Charity Care Ordinance - http://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/StudiesData/CharityCare/CharCareO...

AB 774 at the state level - http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/Products/Hospitals/FairPricing/index.html

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 12:08 am

CPMC profits are "taking

CPMC profits are "taking money from you", but tax dollars do not?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 11:12 pm

Pretty obvious SFBG is out to

Pretty obvious SFBG is out to slander the hospital in a last ditch effort to extort. Why would we want an earthquake ready hospital? Why would we want to see entire blocks of blight removed? Didn't you know that being centrally located and mass transit accessible is bad for poor people? Oh, right. Because someone isn't getting something for free. Or, at least acting on behalf of people who want stuff for free so they can be exploited....cough... Steve Woo of TNDC. You people make me sick.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2011 @ 5:43 pm

I am a homeowner very close

I am a homeowner very close to the proposed new hospital. I am all for the hospital and look forward to it's completion.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 8:32 pm