Newsom said he was a health care champion. But this action says otherwise

In 2015, Sutter Health reported assets worth over $14 billion dollars – an increase of around $2.5 billion compared to 2011. Sutter also announced in that same year it was closing down Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Berkeley because it couldn’t afford to keep it open.

What does it mean not to be able to afford something?

For hospital corporations, closing a facility or unit often means that they “can’t afford” to put a dent in their astronomical profit margins. Patients who lose access to these same services can’t afford to lose them because without them they may die. That’s why nurses fought for commonsense legislation in the form Assembly Bill 1014. If signed into law, the bill would not block a hospital’s ability to close, but it would mandate that more public notice be given first.

The current requirement is generally just 30 days’ notice, with 90 days required for some services such as emergency departments. That’s a blink of an eye for communities to redirect lifesaving care, for patients to figure out how to access services and for workers to transition to new employment.

Nurses knew AB 1014’s requirement of 180 days was much more reasonable. A bipartisan majority of California assembly members also agreed by voting yes on the bill. The only parties strongly opposed seemed to be the industry-driven California Hospital Association and a handful of legislators voting on their behalf.

Enter Gov. Gavin Newsom.

In a shameful move by the supposed “health care governor,” Newsom vetoed AB 1014. In his veto message, he said the bill wouldn’t “change the fact that the state is not able to force a hospital to stay open when they are financially unable” and it “may exacerbate the financial and patient safety concerns that often lead to closures.”

Let’s unpack that veto message. To begin with, the bill didn’t ask hospitals to stay open, just to give a little bit more notice before closing down. The real “patient safety concern” is closing hospitals lightning fast, and that is especially true for vulnerable populations, including the poor, elderly and people of color.

Take Alta Bates, for example. In 2016, around 63 percent of Alta Bates’ hospitalized patients and 56 percent of its emergency department patients were people of color, and about 41 percent either had Medi-Cal or were uninsured. And many patients displaced by the closure of Doctors Medical Center in San Pablo were also forced to seek care at Alta Bates.

When a hospital closes or shuts down services, nearby hospitals struggle to fill the void, lifesaving time is lost for patients for whom every second matters – and we are left with worse medical outcomes and increased mortality rates.

So why is Newsom protecting wealthy hospital corporations that cry poor? We suspect these corporations are less concerned about closing quickly to keep from going under than they are about giving the public scant time to stop them. After all, a mass movement of people forced Sutter to sell San Leandro Hospital to Alameda county rather than closing it and also stopped Sutter from closing St. Luke’s hospital in San Francisco.

The California Nurses Association backed Newsom based on promises to govern in a way that would protect our patients and communities. As nurses, we are constantly monitoring our patients’ condition, and reassessing the best course of action. When we measure Newsom’s AB 1014 veto against his empty promises, we will continue to hold him accountable.

And we will keep fighting for communities to have more notice before lifesaving care disappears, even when our governor won’t.