[let us know asap if you can join us for Seniors First press conference tomorrow (Weds. Apr. 11th) 12:30 pm in front of Ulster County Golden Hill Health Care Center at 99 Golden Hill Drive (off Rt. 32)!...we're not just going to be talking about how county nursing homes like Ulster's shouldn't be privatized; we're also going to be talking about how ridiculous it is that so many in both GOP and Dem power structure in both Washington and Albany have repeatedly thrown senior citizens under the bus!...see below-- and again-- call us at 845-444-0599 if you can come out!...Joel]
[county nursing homes are near and dear to me; I went nine days without food in September 1998 to protest Dutchess GOP privatizing/closing the Millbrook Infirmary]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[thirteen reasons here to join us for this tomorrow-- if you need more convincing!]
1. "Obama Puts Social Security, Medicare Cuts on the Table" [Reuters 7/11/11]
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/07/obama-puts-social-security-medicare-cuts-on-the-table/
2. Chris Gibson voted to destroy Medicare through voucherization last year:
http://dutchessdemocracy. blogspot.com/2011/08/truth-re-gibson-anti-senior-anti.html.
3. Chris Gibson has also received $46,000 from his insurance industry crony buddies over just the last few years alone, according to Maplight.org:
http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/1461-chris-gibson.
4. 81% of Americans support taxing millionaires/billionaires more to solve federal budget problems (Mar. 2011 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll).
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/7333/what_americans_want_the_peoples_budget
5. 78% of Americans support protecting Medicare from cuts; 69% of Americans support protecting Medicaid from any cuts (April 2011 ABC News Washington Post poll).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-shows-americans-oppose-entitlement-cuts-to-deal-with-debt-problem/2011/04/19/AFoiAH9D_story.html
6. Under Cuomo just last year, $36 million was cut from Elderly Prescription Insurance Coverage program:
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-petition-to-fully-fund-new-york-states-elderly-prescription-insurance-coverage-program.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7. "The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently reported that 91% of entitlements go to the elderly or disabled, or to members of working households needing supplemental assistance. Only 9% of entitlement dollars go to non-working but employable individuals, and most of that is for medical care, unemployment, and survivor benefits. Beyond the fact that we're 'entitled' to Social Security and Medicare because we pay for them, these two government-run programs have been largely self-sustaining while supporting the needs of millions of Americans. Medicare is much less costly than private health care. Social Security, which functions with a surplus, would not be in danger of a long-term shortfall if the richest 10% (those making over the $106,800 cutoff) paid their full share."
[from "Five Preposterous, Persistent Conservative Myths" by Paul Buchheit:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/04/02-0]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8. Finally-- most importantly-- this below from SaveGoldenHill.com...
Save Golden Hill-Introduction
The issue of the 280-bed Golden Hill Health Care Center is one that should concern every member of the community. This goes beyond tax dollars. It is about providing local, quality care for those Ulster County residents who can no longer care for themselves.
The following are facts that we feel are important for the public to understand regarding this issue. For more detailed information, please visit the other pages and links at this site.
Subsidy:
Golden Hill Health Care Center is the only county department that is set up as an Enterprise Fund. As such, Golden Hill operates under a budget that is entirely independent of the county budget. All expenses including employee salaries and benefits are included in this budget. The only funding Golden Hill receives from the county is in the form of a subsidy if expenses exceed the revenues received from Medicaid, Medicare and private pay. The County Executive, and his staff had projected a county subsidy to Golden Hill of $4.2 million dollars for 2011, but the actual subsidy stands at just $1.2 Million. Over the past 20 years, the subsidy has varied, and in some years (as recently as 2009), there was no subsidy needed at all. $1.2 Million accounts for just 1/3 of a percent of the total county budget of $352 million.
Renovate or Rebuild:
You have probably heard that studies done a number of years ago on the sewer and water systems beneath the building revealed that they are failing, and need to be replaced. However, these studies are outdated and are disputed by some within the legislature and at Golden Hill. Despite the questionable validity of these studies, they have long been debating the decision to either renovate the existing structure or build a new facility. Should they choose to renovate or build new, the cost would be 70 – 90% reimbursed, including interest, by the state, leaving the county to bear only a fraction of the burden. In addition, a new facility could be designed to be more energy efficient and provide a wider range of services that may increase revenue, thereby eliminating the need for any county subsidy.
Privatization:
Some may wonder – why not sell the nursing home to a private corporation? In fact, one local politician was recently quoted as saying “I believe that government shouldn’t be in any business that can be run and probably better managed in the private sector.” Government’s role is to do in society that which is not done by the private sector. The private sector does not want to care for complex residents who have no means to pay. Private nursing homes are in the business of making money. They go into the hospitals and cherry-pick residents based on their profitability. Residents requiring complex care or who do not have the ability to pay for private care, may not be accepted in the private home, and may be forced to go out of the county or even out-of-state for nursing home care.
Employees:
People wonder why we talk about employees losing their jobs if the nursing home is sold. Private nursing homes have lower staff-to-patient ratios, meaning, they employ fewer people. The current county employees (many of whom have worked at GHHCC for 20 years or more) would be laid off and then would have to compete with all other applicants to apply for a job with the new nursing home. Only a fraction of those employees would be hired, and likely at a much lower rate of pay. This would result in a higher unemployment rate, lower sales tax revenues and more than likely, higher home foreclosure rates.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9. Fact: Albany County still has their county-owned/run nursing home.
"Due to annual budget concerns, this marks the third straight year that Albany County Nursing Home supporters have been forced to rally before the County Legislature to save the facility from closing. Both in 2010 and 2011, the County Executive’s budget eliminated nursing home funding, only to have county lawmakers restore it in the end. The battle continues for 2012."
http://albanycountynursinghomecares.org/news_stories/CountyStories/tapcaphearing.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10. "Nursing Home Privatization: What is the Human Cost in Long Term Care?"
Authors: Steve Lopez
Publication Date: May 1, 1998
http://keystoneresearch.org/publications/research/nursing-home-privatization-what-human-cost
In response to increasing financial pressure and cuts in reimbursement, Pennsylvania county governments are considering privatizing countyowned nursing homes. The idea of saving money by turning county nursing homes over to private operators appeals to county leaders seeking to relieve budget pressures. But what happens to the quality of care when counties turn their nursing homes over to private firms?
This report investigates the effects of privatization or attempted privatization on the quality of care at several county and former county nursing homes in western Pennsylvania: Allegheny County’s John J. Kane Regional Centers, where privatization was proposed but not implemented; Comfort Home, which remained public but whose operation was taken over by a for-profit management company; and Chelsea Manor, which was sold outright to a nonprofit entity created by the county for the purpose of buying the facility. The report compares these homes with one another and with Green Gables, a private nursing home that is characterized by low wages, high employee turnover, and poor quality of care.1
The study draws the following conclusions:
• Although staffing levels declined whether or not privatization was ultimately carried out, the most significant staffing cuts occurred where privatization was taken furthest. After the privatization of Chelsea Manor (the home sold to a newly created private non-profit organization), staffing levels appeared to be nearly identical to those at the low-quality private home—a home where understaffing led state investigators to suspend admissions temporarily in 1997.
•Workers’ wages and employee turnover, two factors affecting care continuity, were most negatively affected at the home where privatization proceeded furthest. At the Kanes and Comfort home (where collective bargaining continued), workers’wages, benefits, and employee turnover remained stable. At Chelsea Manor, wages fell to levels almost identical to those at Green Gables (where staff turnover was rampant). Turnover at Chelsea Manor appeared to be increasing towards that at Green Gables.
• At both homes where some form of privatization was implemented, workers complained about shortages of medical and patient care supplies. Both of these homes seemed to have a more serious problem in this area than the Kanes, but at neither home was the problem as serious as at Green Gables.
• The quality of care at all three of the county and former county homes deteriorated, regardless of whether privatization was actually carried out or only proposed. Once again the worst declines in quality occurred where privatization was taken furthest. After privatization, Chelsea Manor began to develop a pattern of unexplained resident injuries, some of which were not properly investigated or reported. Chelsea Manor’s problems were similar in nature, though not in extent, to quality problems at Green Gables, where several hundred such incidents occurred in a recent 18-month period.
• Even the best homes in the study, the Kanes and Comfort Home, are now unable to meet all the physical, emotional, and social needs of their residents, even though they exceed federal and state standards for staffing ratios. All of the nursing homes described in this report, in varying degrees of urgency, need more nurses’aides.
• As do the Kanes, county nursing homes across Pennsylvania have much lower turnover among nurses’ aides than is typical for private homes. Combined with the case studies, this strongly suggests that nursing home privatization may, in many cases, worsen the quality of care.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11. "Buyer for Ulster County's Golden Hill Health Care Center needed by September"
Published: Wednesday, April 04, 2012
by PATRICIA DOXSEY
Freeman staff
pdoxsey@freemanonline.com; twitter.com/pattiatfreeman
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2012/04/04/news/doc4f7d01af47c46274990815.txt?viewmode=2
KINGSTON, N.Y. — Members of the Golden Hill Local Development Corp. board of directors say they have to select a buyer for the Ulster County-owned nursing home by the end of September in order to have the sale completed by the end of 2013.
“If we can’t select a buyer by then, we’re behind schedule,” said Marshall Beckman, vice chairman of the board.
Beckman said it will take between 20 and 24 months for the buyer to get state approval to purchase the nursing home license.
“What we don’t want to do is go into 2014 with a continued deficit,” he said.
Ulster County Executive Michael Hein predicted an $8 million gap in the county’s 2012 budget because of Golden Hill, and he has predicted that deficit will continue to grow if county ownership of the 280-bed nursing home continues.
On Wednesday, board members got a first look at the resumes of the four firms vying to help the board select the eventual buyer for Golden Hill.
The firms, from as far away as Chicago, responded to a request for qualifications sent by Deputy County Executive Ed Crannell on behalf of the board.
Responding to the request were Loeb & Troper of New York City, Marcus & Millichap of Chicago, the Center for Governmental Research, of Rochester and Next Wave of Albany.
Board members expect to establish protocols for selecting a consultant at their next meeting. In the meantime, board member Michael Bernholz expects to work with Crannell to determine whether there are any other consultants that should be considered for the task.
Board members expect the consultant to help the board evaluate prospective buyers and pick the one that fits best with the county’s future wants for the nursing home.
In December, legislators, pushed by Hein to agree to sell the nursing home, created the Golden Hill Local Development Corp., transferred to it the ownership of the nursing home and authorized the corporation to bond for up to $10 million.
The corporation will, in turn, pay to the county $8 million to operate the nursing home in 2012.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12. From http://www.shawangunkjournal.com/2011/12/08/news/1112085.html...
Golden Hill supporters protest outside the county office building.
Ulster County Dispatch
Pawning Gold: County Legislature Votes to Sell Golden Hill
By Paula Sirc
KINGSTON – Seventeen Ulster County lawmakers voted on Monday night to transfer ownership of the county-run nursing facility to a local development corporation, with the goal of selling it to a private owner by 2013.
The Legislature also voted, 19-13, to adopt the 2012 county budget, a slightly modified version of the one presented by County Executive Michael Hein in early October. Hein's proposed budget was dependent on the sale of the nursing home.
Seven Democrats joined ten Republicans to approve the resolution authorizing the "required steps" to transfer Golden Hill, while 14 members voted against privatization of the 280-bed facility. Legislator Hector Rodriguez, D-New Paltz, abstained from the vote because of a potential conflict of interest with his employer and Legislator Jack Hayes, R-Gardiner, was absent.
The development corporation, which comprises members of the county executive's administration, county legislators and an independently-selected member, will bond, or borrow, $9.3 million against the future sale of the facility, and pay the county $8 million, which will be used to balance the 2012 county budget.
Arguing to keep Golden Hill in county hands, Legislator Carl Belfiglio, R-Esopus, urged the legislative body to "take a step back," saying the idea was foisted upon an unsuspecting legislature by the county executive. "This was shoved into the budget," he said, "and gives too much power to the county executive."
Legislator Susan Zimet, D-New Paltz, said the legislature has been "railroaded."
"Is it appropriate to take the selling of an asset, tie it up in a budget, bond for a deficit hole, at a cost of $1.3 million to the taxpayers and say this is good sound fiscal policy," she asked. "Doing something like this so fast is not a good way to do public service."
County Comptroller Elliott Auerbach and his attorney, Ken Bond, agreed. "This is not an eleventh hour Hail Mary pass," Auerbach said. "I believe it is in Ulster County's best interest to ask some questions."
Prior to Monday's meeting, Legislator Robert Parete, D-Stone Ridge, sent his colleagues his list of questions regarding the LDC, urging them to "proceed with caution until county leaders explain the full ramifications of the LDC."
Parete's questions demonstrate the level of legislative exclusion in the process of creating the LDC. Among the ten questions: what is the appraised value of the property, will the responses to the Golden Hill Request for Proposals will be made public, how many years it will take to transfer full ownership, how much will the corporation finance during the transfer, will the anticipated and unanticipated revenue generated by GH go toward paying down the LDC bond, will the LDC follow all state and local procurement and competitive bidding laws and will the future owner maintain the facility as a 280-bed skilled nursing center.
Legislative Golden Hill supporters had drawn up a last minute amendment that would balance the 2012 budget, not by transfer of the nursing home, but through the sale of other county properties that are "no longer required for public use."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.woodstockx.com/2011/12/08/legislature-approves-executive-plan-to-sell-health-care-facility-passes-budget-for-2012/
13. Legislature approves executive plan to sell Health Care facility, passes budget for 2012
by Hugh Reynolds on Dec 8, 2011 • 5:00 pm 2 Comments
County executive Michael Hein
Weathering charges of duplicity and secrecy against the Hein administration, and warnings they were acting prematurely and in ignorance, a bare majority of county legislators approved the sale of the Golden Hill Health Facility to a county-run limited development corporation (LDC) on Monday, December 5.
The approving 17 votes (14 against) were almost evenly divided between majority Republicans and Democrats. Jack Hayes of Gardiner was in Florida on vacation. Hector Rodriguez excused himself because of potential conflicts of interest. Rodriguez works for Kingston developer Steve Aaron who has expressed interest in partnering with developers of the 27-acre site. Then, by a 19-14 margin, it approved County Executive Michael Hein’s $363 million budget.
The debate, which stretched through afternoon meetings of legislative committees, conferences among lawyers and then well into the night at the special budget meeting of the legislature, was at times rancorous. Some legislators, like Jim Maloney of Ulster and Carl Belfiglio of Esopus, expressed bewilderment after learning that while a special legislative task force headed by Walter Frey of Saugerties was investigating options on Golden Hill last year, the county executive had secretly engaged an Albany law firm to work out the details of a limited development corporation to sell the facility.
“It has been a long process, most of it done in secret,” Maloney said.
But Hein has said it was the legislature’s inability or refusal to make a decision — and his need for up to $8 million to plug a 2012 budget gap — that forced his hand. Hein argues that his is the “compassionate solution” to the Golden Hill controversy in that it will keep the facility running for the next two years and then under private ownership. Hein said the county could not continue to fund operating deficits at the 40-year old nursing home that next year he predicts will top $5 million. The facility, which some consultants consider outdated, may also need more than $40 million in repairs.
Delay rejected
Legislators and speakers on behalf of Golden Hill argued that a for-profit operation would not provide the level of care patients in the 280-bed facility have been given for almost two generations.
But the majority, with Hein’s prompting, decided the legislature had been given sufficient time to make a decision and that the time for debate was over. Ten legislators who voted on the Hein proposal will not be back next year.
A last-ditch effort by county comptroller Elliott Auerbach failed to change a vote which many had predicted was pre-ordained. Auerbach brought in Kenneth Bond, his special legal consultant and an authority on LDCs, to argue that the legislature was acting without sufficient information and that it should delay its decision into next year.
Ken Ronk of Wallkill was among the many who rejected that notion. “We would be forcing this decision on the next legislature, kicking the can down the road,” he said. Ronk will be the Republican majority leader of that legislature.
Susan Zimet of New Paltz and Don Gregorius of Woodstock were among those who agreed with Bond that the county could designate any asset — including Golden Hill — to raise the $8 million Hein says he needs to balance his budget. Both argued that the legislature itself should form and control an LDC to pursue the sale of surplus properties. It was a measure of the progress of this years-long controversy from avoidance to decision that nobody advanced the notion of the county continuing ownership and operation of Golden Hill. The debate was almost entirely over the best way to construct an LDC — an entity that can manage property and borrow money without voter approval.
Two seldom-shows over the past three months — retiring legislator Frank Felicello of Marlborough and the defeated Frey — appeared and split their votes. Felicello argued vehemently for Golden Hill. Frey said nothing during the regular legislature meeting but chaired a special informational meeting of his Health and Human Services Committee prior to the regular meeting. Committee vice chairman Rob Parete of Accord ran that meeting, with Frey saying little.
Frey’s special legislative committee shut down in July without making any recommendations among the nine options it considered. Hein presented his plan in October.
The budget vote, with Rodriguez rejoining his colleagues, was an anti-climatic affirmative vote, at 19-14. Hein’s $363 million budget was approved with only minor changes.
The process now moves to the naming of a seven-member LDC board of directors. Three members will be chosen by the legislature and three by the executive from a pool of candidates recruited by the executive. None can be public office holders. Those six will elect a seventh from Hein’s pool.
The LDC will have the authority to market and sell the 27-acre Golden Hill site. It does not include other county nearby properties like the abandoned jail, the bus terminal or the mental health building.++
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment