Needed: a public health master plan


California Pacific Medical Center's plan to build a massive new regional hospital on Van Ness shouldn't be under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission

EDITORIAL More than 100 people showed up at the Planning Commission Sept. 23 to oppose California Pacific Medical Center's plan to build a massive new regional hospital on Van Ness Avenue. Most were neighborhood residents who raised an excellent point: what, exactly, would the shiny new $2.5 billion hospital offer for low-income people in the Tenderloin?

And that's just the starting point for discussion. The new project is a piece of a much larger plan: CPMC wants to shut down part of its Laurel Heights campus, reduce the number of beds and the scope of service at St. Luke's, turn Ralph K. Davis into a specialty facility, and reshape the way health care is provided in San Francisco.

That's a huge deal — but right now, the city is looking at the projects piecemeal. That's poor public health policy and poor land-use planning. In fact, there's no real way to evaluate the Van Ness hospital in its proper context — the Planning Commission, which will rule on the development issues, is hardly the best venue in which to discuss the future of health care in San Francisco.

So new legislation by Sup. David Campos is critical to injecting some sanity into this, and the larger, health facilities debate. The Campos legislation would mandate a citywide Health Care Services Master Plan and would require that all new hospital development, public or private, be consistent with that plan. It's a pretty basic concept, and it's hard to imagine that nobody's suggested this before.

San Francisco has a large, complex network of facilities providing health care — a big public hospital, a university hospital system (University of California San Francisco), a series of public and nonprofit community clinics, half a dozen private hospitals run by two competing chains (CPMC and Catholic Healthcare West), and one health maintenance organization (Kaiser). Some provide unique services, some provide competitive services — and there are some critical services that are hard to find anywhere.

It's hard to say whether the city needs what CPMC is proposing — a gigantic medical center that some have described as the Mayo Clinic of the West, designed to attract patients from all over the region — without any sort of overall plan. How would the new facility and the CPMC restructuring affect services at St. Luke's, a critical part of the health care infrastructure in the Mission? Where would patients who rely on Davies for emergency and clinical care in the Castro district wind up? How about all the medical office buildings and doctors' offices situated near hospitals that are about to change?

How will CPMC's moves affect low-income-patient care? How does the project fit in with the new Obama health care policies and the city's own Healthy San Francisco program? Will a new hospital on Van Ness increase access to primary and emergency care for residents of the Tenderloin — or will they be shuttled somewhere else while the high-end facility caters to better-off patients seeking expensive specialty procedures?

Those aren't land-use decisions — and while some Cathedral Hill residents argue that the new hospital will cause traffic problems, the biggest issues go beyond the scope and expertise of the city Planning Department.

Under the Campos bill, the Public Health Department would develop a master plan (which public health director Mitch Katz says can be done with existing resources), the Health Commission would review that plan, hold public hearings, and sign off on it — and city planners and health officials would have to make sure that new health-related development met existing and future public needs.

The supervisors should pass the bill and get the process going as quickly as possible. And they should refuse to sign off on any final version of the hospital plan until there's a city framework in place — or at the very least, until CPMC can demonstrate that its citywide infrastructure plans are designed to meet public health needs. *



The first time this was raised was at a big public hearing attended by hundreds at the Cathedral Hill Hotel in July, 2005. It was sponsored by Environmental Review Division of the Department of City Planning--triggered by the EIR on this hospital submitted by Sutter that year.

I testimony and the testimony of others focussed on the need for an Acute Care Facilities Master Plan for San Francisco for ONE CENTRAL REASON: we are not planning a hospital at Cathedral Hill, but we are designing:

--a post-Earthquake Emergency Medical Plan.

Sutter told its architects that the reason it wants to shoehorn this large hospital on the smallest piece of ground for any hospital of this size in the US as Sutter is a PPO in competition with Kaiser HMO and it needs to be proximate to Kaiser.

But does this suit the City's WANTS, NEEDS and RESOURCES? Are we meeting the public's need for geographic balance--balance we will need as WE WILL WALK--not drive--our injured to the hospital post-quake?

The answer lies in a MASTER PLAN, a PLAN that Sutter/CPMC does not want and will attempt to exempt itself from--and I fear will find the 6 votes as part of a "compromise" to keep St.Luke's open.

Now do you know why Sutter bought St.Luke's? And by the way: all the indigent care will be conducted out of Sutter which needs St.Luke's for this purpose--again, part of the 'compromise' engineered from the beginning by Sutter.

We are all simply acting out the script, and unfortunately, people may die as we failed to pay heed to the greater public good.

As they say: where does a $1.7 Billion dollar gorilla sit? Anywhere it wants to...

Charles Marsteller

Posted by Guest Charley_sf on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 2:00 pm

Also from this author

  • Guardian endorsements

    Campos for Assembly, Yes on Props. B and 42, re-elect Gov. Jerry Brown — our recommendations for the June 2014 primary election

  • The future of Piers 30-32

  • Hold BART accountable for deaths