While Good Samaritan cautions San Jose officials about delaying the approval of its new hospital, a newly released construction timeline revealed that the facility may not open in time to replace the current hospital — which will no longer meet the state’s seismic requirements in 2030 — potentially placing greater strain on local health services.
Good Samaritan’s campus — owned by HCA Healthcare — is currently moving through the rezoning approval process.
Good Samaritan CEO Patrick Rohan disclosed Wednesday at a committee meeting that the hospital is already behind schedule as he sought to have the City Council consider the company’s rezoning request on Nov.19.
“Phase one of the project alone will take six years to complete, which means any deferral threatens the state-mandated seismic timelines and the hospital’s ability to stay open,” Rohan said. “Deferring the decision is not just a delay. It effectively ensures that a vital community hospital will close, leaving this area of San Jose without access to acute care.”
California law requires all older hospitals that offer acute beds, those provided to patients who need 24-hour medical care, to meet seismic requirements by the end of this decade. Good Samaritan’s representatives warned that the state could revoke its facility’s license by that date without retrofitting or replacing the current hospital.
To avoid disruptions to patient care, the health care provider intends to keep the current hospital running while it constructs the new facilities, which includes a parking garage and a central power plant.
Rohan estimated the project will cost $1.2 billion. Because the new hospital will sit on the current surface parking lot, Rohan said Good Samaritan will build the parking garage first, which he estimated would take 12-14 months. The power plant would follow a similar timeline before construction of the hospital begins.
Despite Kaiser Permanente’s San Jose hospital going through the same process, which the city approved last month, HCA and Good Samaritan have faced a markedly rougher path.
Last month, the city’s planning commission recommended that the City Council reject the hospital’s plan as several commissioners blasted HCA over its past business practices, which they said put “profits over people.”
At the heart of their discontent were Good Samaritan’s decision to no longer offer acute psychiatric beds and HCA’s plan to downgrade Regional Medical Center’s trauma unit in East San Jose before the county swooped in to buy the hospital and restore services.
Nurses also questioned how HCA could effectively provide patient care with the new facility when it could not adequately staff the current hospital.
HCA, through a letter submitted by its attorneys at Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP, called the planning commission’s decisions arbitrary and unlawful.
The vitriol toward Good Samaritan and HCA continued Wednesday as District 5 Councilmember Peter Ortiz requested a deferral to gather more feedback from the community, adding that the city could “reward bad actors or choose to hold them accountable.”
“Our general plan holds the city responsible for ensuring our health care resources are planned with equity in mind and to make sure that everyone has access to services,” Ortiz said. “Us, as councilmembers, hold that responsibility.”
Jaria Jaug, assistant director of care policy at Working Partnerships USA, said advocacy groups wanted a seat at the table to negotiate a patient protection fund with community oversight to restore mental health services at the hospital and prevent future divestments.
“The city is in the business to help address the homelessness and mental health crises,” Jaug said. “Entities that exacerbate these crises should give back to the community and help fix the problems that we are facing. HCA has a reputation of divesting anywhere that it isn’t profitable, even at the expense of the community and mental health care.”
District 6 Councilmember Dev Davis also entered into a tense exchange with Rohan after she repeatedly asked him what happens to people in need of acute psychiatric care and failed to receive a response.
“I’m not just in favor of preserving, protecting and expanding medical services,” Davis said. “I think you need to restore medical services, particularly the very dire mental health needs that we have in this county and this community. I think it’s atrocious that you closed your psychiatric facilities, and you have a new opportunity.”
However, District 9 Councilmember Pam Foley, who represents the area where the hospital is located, declined to support the deferral request and echoed the concerns over how delays could negatively impact the community.
Foley said that her office had conducted significant community engagement beyond the requirements outlined in city policy and was in active negotiations with HCA to provide increased community benefits.
“I’m a little bothered by the implication that my office, in coordination with city staff and Good Samaritan, has not done our due diligence on community outreach and engagement,” she said.
Good Samaritan did not respond to questions from The Mercury News about its plans and the impact on services if the new hospital is not operational by Jan. 1, 2030.
Related Articles
Letters: A good start | S.J. council | Old City Hall | Mental health
Resigned SJ councilmember Omar Torres charged with alleged molestation of relative
Omar Torres: San Jose District 3 City Council seat will become vacant on Nov. 27 after resignation
SJ City Councilmember Omar Torres arrested on child molestation allegation hours after resigning
Letters: San Jose council | Vote for Liccardo | Low for Congress | Saratoga schools | Measure Q | Board of education | Campbell Union board | Santa Clara council
Instead, the hospital continued to harp on the devastating impacts of delaying its approval.
“Good Samaritan Hospital has been a faithful steward of San Jose’s planning process, communicating extensively the benefits and impact of our $1.2 billion proposal and state-mandated seismic retrofit,” a statement from Good Samaritan Hospital read. “We incorporated that feedback into the plan submitted to the City Council. Any deferral of our proposal premised on the supposition that more feedback is needed threatens the state’s seismic legal timelines and risks the hospital’s ability to remain operational.”