Issue link: https://nnumagazine.uberflip.com/i/198549
d saw that kind of Because we looked an believe it is or, we find it difficult to behavi e. Most hospitals imarily a financial issu pr money. I think it's have huge amounts of ls H tter of priorities.theospitaline a ma dead ange the Legislature will ch think it seriously. so they haven't taken EN T 1661 allowed hospitals under construction to extend the 2013 deadline to 2015. This fall, the Legislature voted again to let hospitals extend the 2013 deadline to 2020 if they can show financial hardship. SB 306 allows "hospital owners who do not have the financial capacity to bring certain buildings into compliance by 2013 to, instead, replace those buildings by Jan. 1, 2020." CNA/NNOC opposed the legislation, holding a September press conference in Los Angeles—where many unsafe hospital facilities CT OR OF GO VE RN M — DO NN A GE RB ER , DI RE are concentrated—to warn against further delayOC ing upgrades. RE LA TI ON S FO R CN A/ NN Hospitals pushed hard to pass the bill. The California Hospital Association, the hospital industry's lobbyist group, spent $1.2 million from Jan. 1 Under HAZUS, a technology developed by the Federal Emerthrough Sept. 30 trying to influence legislation, according to lobbying reports filed with the California Secretary of gency Management Agency (FEMA), a myriad of factors including State's office. These reports do not break out how much of that building type, quality of construction, soil type, and how prone the money was spent specifically on working to pass SB 306, but definite- site is to seismic activity is taken into account in determining the new ly includes such efforts. The reports also show that the hospital asso- SPC category of a building. Gerber pointed out, however, that all of the buildings being reevalciation lobbied the Office of Statewide Health Planning (OSHPD), the agency overseeing compliance with the seismic deadlines, and uated by HAZUS were built before 1973 and are generally accepted as the Office of the State Architect regarding seismic issues. In addition, not meeting modern seismic standards. Parsing finer and finer lobbying reports show that hospital chains such as Sutter Health also degrees of risk is hardly accurate and will likely prove moot in a bigenough earthquake. Why not err on the side of safety? "We're just individually lobbied their position on SB 306. State Sen. Elaine Alquist, whose late husband authored the 1983 applying a new, computer model to 'guess' at risk and basically law, was one of the few legislators who voted against this new exten- extending deadlines on buildings that may still be very dangerous in a sion. "It's not a matter of if, but when," said Alquist. "Hospitals need big enough seismic event," said Gerber. to be safe places to go. The for-profit hospitals have known for 12 years that they needed to meet these seismic standards. That's here are a number of reasons why hospitals have resisted enough time." Alquist said that she is sympathetic to the plight of cerinvestments in retrofitting or replacing their buildings, but most tain nonprofit, safety net hospitals and may be willing to support of them boil down to one thing: money. Hospitals have long using public funds to help those rebuild. moaned that they just can't afford to comply with the seismic Meanwhile, hospitals are pursuing another approach for pushing safety deadlines. even the 2020 deadline out another decade to 2030. Under the rules, Indeed, a January 2007 RAND Corp. study titled "SB 1953 non-SPC-1 buildings have until 2030 to rebuild, so hospitals are supporting a new method of reevaluating buildings under a voluntary and the Challenge of Hospital Seismic Safety in California" estimated program called HAZUS in hopes that as many as half of the SPC-1 that the total cost of construction could range from $45 to $110 billion structures will be downgraded in risk to other categories. Gov. in 2006 dollars. It's also true that construction costs have skyrocketArnold Schwarzenegger's administration declared a finding of emer- ed in the past couple of decades, reaching what is now considered a peak, and that coordinating major hospital rebuilds is hard work. gency in September to allow the HAZUS program to move forward. But whining that hospital construction is too expensive has in many respects proved to be a self-fulfilling prophecy: As hospitals have procrastinated due to high construction costs, costs have escalated even higher. If hospital owners had gotten started on retrofitting or replacing their structures sooner, costs would Top 10 California counties with most hospital buildings in danger of collapse likely have been lower. Rank County Number of SPC-1 buildings 1 Los Angeles 352 After all, some hospitals have managed to replace or retrofit 2 San Diego 79 their structures. Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, a public 3 Orange 63 hospital, opened its new facility in 1998. Santa Clara has a mod4 San Bernardino 60 ern facility as well. And Kaiser Permanente is deep into compre5 Alameda 46 hensive plans to replace or build new hospitals throughout 6 Santa Clara 42 northern California to meet the seismic requirements. "The 7 Riverside 36 state's seismic requirement does not seem to be an impediment 8 San Francisco 34 when a hospital is serious about its future," wrote OSHPD in a 9 San Mateo 29 2005 report. 10 Kern and Sacramento 27 The RAND study zeroed in on what the authors viewed as a T HOW SAFE ARE HOSPITALS IN YOUR COUNTY? 12 REGISTERED NURSE W W W. C A L N U R S E S . O R G DECEMBER 2007