Dear CHOICES Subscribers, CHOICES anticipates the Springfield City Council will approve PeaceHealth's request on Monday, March 31 (#3). But we don't understand why the Springfield City Council are proposing to declare an emergency as they do so. The hospital is not scheduled to open for years, so what's the hurry? Our best guess is that by declaring an emergency, Springfield makes it more difficult for citizens to collect signatures to refer the decision to the ballot. Such is the state of democracy in America. Alan Pittman's cover story in the Eugene Weekly summarizes much of the public testimony about PeaceHealth's plans, including from several CHOICES members (#8). PeaceHealth recently released more information about their plans (#9). If you want to ask Alan Yordy about PeaceHealth's plans, come to the City Club this Friday (#6) or to the roundtable discussion the following Tuesday (#7). Meanwhile, McKenzie-Willamette is working to finalize its partnership with Triad (#10). On Wednesday, the Lane County Board of Commissioners is scheduled to hear an update on the response from the Oregon Attorney General to the proposed partnership (#5). It appears that local fire departments have worked out a compromise of sorts on the boundaries for ambulance service (#11). Sony Music Entertainment is making sweeping layoffs, but it was not immediately clear whether the move will have any effect on the Sony CD factory in Springfield (#12). On April 14, Ernest Bleinberger of Hunter Interests Inc., an Annapolis-based development consulting firm, will share his plan for a true Springfield city center -- "the heart of Springfield," in his words -- during a public forum (#13). With the country at war, federal deficits rising, and the Bush administration pushing for tax cuts, Oregon may have a harder time getting federal money for projects such as the Beltline/I-5 interchange (#14). Speaking of expensive projects, a state appeals board ruled that last year's approval of the $88 million, 5.8-mile West Eugene Parkway failed to comply with state planning goals (#15). But Eugene city attorney Emily Jerome described the appellate board's decision as "really favorable to the local governments," and suggested that none of the concerns highlighted by LUBA should jeopardize the road project (#16). What does the West Eugene Parkway have to do with hospitals? First, funding for the parkway competes for funding for roadway construction to support a new PeaceHealth hospital. Second, in his recent State of the City address, Eugene Mayor Torrey called for roadway construction all the way from the West Eugene Parkway, along Beltline, right up to the new PeaceHealth hospital, citing concerns over an ambulance stuck in rush hour traffic. Third, the decisions Springfield is expected to make to support a new hospital must satisfy the same state planning goals as the parkway. How one big project is treated may provide insight into the other. Finally, CHOICES continues to be concerned about access to quality health care. What good does it do to have modern health care facilities if an increasing number of people can't afford to receive health care and an increasing number of doctors can't afford to provide it? (#17, #18, #19, #20) How do *you* feel about PeaceHealth's plans? about McKenzie-Willamette's? Let us know! Rob Zako, Editor 343-5201 rzako@efn.org ============================================================ Health Options Digest March 30, 2003 Coalition for Health Options In Central Eugene-Springfield ============================================================ * OPPORTUNITIES 1.rg - Two Vacancies on Springfield Planning Commission 2.rg - Serve the city * CALENDAR 3.sn - Mon 3/31 - Springfield City Council 4.xx - Tue 4/1 - Springfield Planning Commission 5.sn - Wed 4/2 - Lane County Board of Commissioners 6.cc - Fri 4/4 - City Club Of Eugene 7.cc - Tue 4/8 - City Club Of Eugene * PEACEHEALTH'S PLANS 8.ew - RiverBending The Rules 9.ph - PeaceHealth Facilities Progress * MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE'S PLANS 10.mw - McKenzie-Willamette and Triad are forming a joint venture * AMBULANCE BOUNDARY RULES 11.rg - Ambulance policy changes for trial period * NEARBY DEVELOPMENTS 12.rg - Sony will lay off 1,000 workers 13.rg - Heart of it all * TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 14.rg - Federal dollars limited 15.rg - Parkway opponents laud state's ruling 16.rg - Officials downplay effects of ruling on parkway * OTHER NEWS 17.rg - 'Doctor, I can't afford it' 18.rg - LeBow and Allcott: Malpractice crisis compromises patient access 19.rg - Editorial: Fix malpractice system 20.rg - Thousands get health plan reprieve 21.sn - Arlie & Co. hires executive assistant * KEY, CREDITS, MORE INFO ====================== Opportunities ===================== ------------------------------------------------------------ 1.rg - Two Vacancies on Springfield Planning Commission ------------------------------------------------------------ By Matt Cooper The Register-Guard, 3/8/03, Page B1 The city is accepting applications for two positions on the seven-member Planning Commission. Members are volunteers with no ward restrictions, appointed to four-year terms. The commission has authority over zone changes, variances, appeals and discretionary-use requests. It makes recommendations to the City Council about growth and development and works with staff in drafting amendments to the Metropolitan Area General Plan, the Eugene-Springfield blueprint for growth. The commission meets on the first and third Tuesday of each month, for about 2 1/2 hours. Applications are available in the City Manager's Office in City Hall, 225 Fifth St. The deadline to apply is 5 p.m. April 11. For more information, call Mel Oberst at 726-3783. Matt Cooper can be reached at 338-2317 or mcooper@guardnet.com. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/03/08/b1.cr.spcitybeat.0308.html News Release: http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/CMO/NewsRelease/NR%202003%20March%206%20Planning%20Commission%20Vacancy.pdf ------------------------------------------------------------ 2.rg - Serve the city ------------------------------------------------------------ By Matt Cooper The Register-Guard The city has openings on its historic commission, the library board and the building board of appeals. There is one opening on the seven-member historical commission, which promotes stewardship for historic preservation. Applicants don't need to be residents or property owners, but are required to meet State Historic Preservation Office guidelines. The city also seeks a volunteer for the Springfield Library Board. Applicants must be registered voters who live within the city limits, and the term will expire at the end of the year. The board provides recommendations for future library development and changes to policy. The city also seeks to fill all five positions on the building board of appeals, which determines the suitability of alternate materials and methods of construction, interprets safety codes and hears building and sign code appeals. Preference will go to applicants with a general background in construction, development, design, marketing, manufacturing or other related fields. Applicants must be residents, registered voters or property owners. Applications are available at the City Manager's Office in City Hall, 225 Fifth St. Application deadlines: 4 p.m. April 14 for the historic commission; 5 p.m. April 4 for the library position; and 5 p.m. April 11 for the board of appeals. For more information on the historic commission, call Kitti Gale at 726-3632. For the library position, call Bob Russell, library director, at 726-3756. For the board of appeals, call Lisa Hopper or Dave Puent at 726-3753. Matt Cooper can be reached at 338-2317 or mcooper@ guardnet.com. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/03/22/b3.cr.spcitybeat.0322.html ======================== Calendar ======================== ------------------------------------------------------------ 3.sn - Mon 3/31 - Springfield City Council ------------------------------------------------------------ Monday, March 31, 7 pm Council Meeting Room, City Hall, 225 Fifth St., Springfield For info, call 726-3700 1) Request for Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan Amendments Jo. No. 2002-08-243 and Jo. No. 2002-08-244 (Peace Health). [Colin Stephens] (90 min.) Ordinance No. 1 -- An ordinance amending the Metropolitan Area General Plan diagram by redesignating up to 33 acres of land from Medium Density Residential to Community Commercial at the Gateway MDR site and declaring an emergency. Ordinance No. 2 -- An ordinance amending the Gateway Refinement Plan diagram and text by allowing Community Commercial plan designation at the Gateway MDR site to be implemented by Mixed Use Commercial on the Springfield zoning map; by amending the Gateway Refinement Plan text to allow for the Community Commercial Metro Plan designation to be affixed upon master plan approval; to allow for the Medical Services district to be applied to up to 66 acres of Medium Density Residential plan designation; to allow for the development of a hospital, associated medical, office, retail and residential uses; to preserve the potential for nodal development; to require a master plan to be approved by the city council, and declaring an emergency. Ordinance Enactment and Effective Date: In the event an ordinance contains an emergency clause, the ordinance shall become operative immediately upon passage by the council by a two-thirds majority of all members of the council. Ordinances not containing an emergency clause shall not take effect until 30 days after its passage. http://www.springfieldnews.com/articles/2003/03/28/calendar/news1.txt Agenda: http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/CMO/2003Council/033103%20agenda.pdf See also: #8.ew - RiverBending The Rules #9.ph - PeaceHealth Facilities Progress ------------------------------------------------------------ 4.xx - Tue 4/1 - Springfield Planning Commission ------------------------------------------------------------ Tuesday, April 1, 7 pm City Council Chambers, City Hall, 225 Fifth St., Springfield For info, call 726-3753 Agenda: http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/dsd/Planning/PC%20Agenda%20&%20Minutes/2003/Regular%20Agenda/April%201%202003.pdf ------------------------------------------------------------ 5.sn - Wed 4/2 - Lane County Board of Commissioners ------------------------------------------------------------ Wednesday, April 2, 9 am 125 E. Eighth Ave., Eugene For info, call 682-4203 * Oral report on letter from McKenzie-Willamette regarding Attorney General decision. * Report back on revising park schedules and increasing fees. http://www.springfieldnews.com/articles/2003/03/28/calendar/news1.txt See also: #10.mw - McKenzie-Willamette and Triad are forming a joint venture ------------------------------------------------------------ 6.cce - Fri 4/4 - City Club Of Eugene ------------------------------------------------------------ Friday, April 4, 11:50 am Eugene Hilton, Hellman Room Free to members, nominal charge for others Optional lunch available For info, call 485-7433 Sacred Heart: Planning Our Next 67 Years * Alan Yordy, CEO PeaceHealth Oregon Region While the news media focus has thankfully shifted from Sacred Heart to Triad, the area's oldest and largest hospital continues to plan its most significant construction project ever and the largest healthcare project in the history of the county: the addition of a second medical campus at RiverBend in Springfield. This investment in the future of health care comes at a time of enormous uncertainty for hospitals across the nation and across the river. Along with other industries and the economy as a whole, Sacred Heart faces its greatest fiscal challenges ever: declining reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid, rising costs of essential products such as energy, supplies and drugs, labor shortages that drive up our personnel costs. But Sacred Heart has long-planned for this investment and is on track to build a facility that is designed to meet the unique needs of this region reflecting the natural beauty of this unique site. The new hospital will be a jewel in the state and will be the finest hospital on the West Coast. The construction of RiverBend frees up space on the Hilyard campus in Eugene to make significant reinvestments and upgrade those aging facilities. Both campuses are needed to meet the community's demand for services. Even after RiverBend opens, Hilyard will continue to employ an estimated 1,800 people, making PeaceHealth the largest private employer in both Eugene and Springfield. http://www.cityclubofeugene.org/calendar/2003_04_04.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 7.cce - Tue 4/8 - City Club Of Eugene ------------------------------------------------------------ Tuesday, April 8, 5:15 pm Cafe Paradiso Free and open to the public For info, call 485-7433 Brian S. Terrett, Director of Public Affairs & Communications PeaceHealth Oregon Region, will join the City Club of Eugene for an informal follow up discussion to the April 4 program with Alan Yordy. http://www.cityclubofeugene.org/calendar/2003_04_04.html =================== PeaceHealth's Plans ================== ------------------------------------------------------------ 8.ew - RiverBending The Rules ------------------------------------------------------------ PeaceHealth ignites contention over planning for new hospital. By Alan Pittman Eugene Weekly, 3/27/03 [Figure: PeaceHealth draft plan] The Springfield City Council will decide Monday, March 31 whether or not to allow PeaceHealth to move its downtown Eugene hospital to a site along the McKenzie River in far north Springfield. "It may be one of the most significant land use decisions that you will make for many years to come," Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) planner Mark Radabaugh writes in a letter to Springfield. "The proposed amendments currently fall short of compliance with several statewide planning goals," DLCD warns the city in criticism of proposals to amend city development rules to accommodate PeaceHealth. "The future livability of the metropolitan area is clearly up for grabs," says Lauri Segel, of the land use watchdog 1000 Friends of Oregon. But PeaceHealth CEO Alan Yordy urges Springfield to not restrict the hospital's development plans. "Flexibility will provide the greatest opportunity for success." PeaceHealth Development Director Phillip Farrington says PeaceHealth's proposal to build a 1 million square foot hospital in a field and woods along the river "meets all the criteria for approval." PeaceHealth's Portland attorney Steven Pfeiffer, one of the most expensive development lawyers in the state, dismisses DLCD's concerns as not legal requirements but an "ill defined set of theories." An army of PeaceHealth consultants, employees and business associates has buried Springfield planners and councilors in a blizzard of documents and testimony supporting their hospital proposal. The public record for the decision is several feet thick. The Springfield planning staff agree with PeaceHealth that the hospital proposal is legal. The Springfield Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the hospital site with a 60-ft. height limit. But opponents of the hospital location haven't given up. "I don't think it's a done deal," says Jan Wilson of the Coalition for Health Options in Central Eugene-Springfield (CHOICES). "It could go either way." Wilson says Springfield isn't legally required to approve RiverBend but is legally required to reject it. The facts make a compelling case against moving the hospital to the edge of town, she says. "The public costs here are enormous -- besides the loss of river views, costs include the change in character of the area, huge increases in traffic impacting both neighborhood residents and existing businesses in the Gateway area, the forced relocation of Springfield's community hospital, the loss of an opportunity to do real nodal development that could work, and, of course, the hundreds of millions of dollars in new roads that would be needed to support this." Based on thousands of pages of public records and testimony in the land use decision, here's a look at the hurdles PeaceHealth faces in building the largest development in local history at RiverBend. 'Sore Thumb' PeaceHealth CEO Yordy has balked at the Springfield Planning Commission recommendation to limit the height of RiverBend. "We cannot build a world-class facility within a 60-foot height limit," he says. But critics say a tall hospital would violate state and local planning rules and destroy scenic views of the river and Coburg Hills and the site's natural setting. "It's the height of arrogance," says Sue Wolling, a Sacred Heart intensive care nurse who supports an improved hospital, but not at RiverBend. PeaceHealth hasn't said exactly how tall it plans to build its riverside hospital. But documents indicate the hospital favors about nine stories at 15 to 20 feet per floor producing a building 135 to 180 feet tall. At that height, RiverBend would be one of the tallest buildings in the entire area. William Carpenter of Springfield says he supports PeaceHealth's proposal, but not it's height. The hospital would be one and a half times the height of the tallest UO building (PLC) and stick out even in an urban setting, he says. "This is not an appropriate way to site such a behemoth on the pristine setting of the McKenzie River." Robin Jaqua, whose family has farmed the area across the river for 50 years, says, "Many of us who live in the area of north Springfield are appalled at PeaceHealth's desire to have the zoning changed so they can build a high rise and three tremendous parking structures on the banks of the river." Jaqua says PeaceHealth's hospital threatens her family's plans to protect the beauty of the area. She says the Jaquas have written wills to protect the area as farmland and protect 1,200 acres of the hills including Mount Baldy. "This area is to be preserved in its natural state forever." Aaron Helfrich, president of the McKenzie River Guides Association, says the lower McKenzie is a largely undeveloped "gem" full of wildlife and scenery that should be protected. Many locals enjoy the close-by "great day float" from Hayden Bridge to Armitage Park, he says. The stretch "gives the sense of being in the wild. That forever will change with a huge building along the banks." [Figure: PeaceHealth draft design] Former Register-Guard columnist Don Bishoff says he's one local that doesn't want to see the area ruined. "I object to the installation of such a huge structure -- whether three stories or nine stories tall -- at the proposed location and what it will do to the river environment." "Please don't sacrifice the beauty of the McKenzie River on the altar of PeaceHealth avarice," says Gail Campbell of Eugene. "You will open the door to creating another high-rise downtown right at the McKenzie River." Wilson of CHOICES says Yordy's claim that he can't build a less imposing hospital "simply verifies that PeaceHealth has selected the wrong site. High-rise buildings belong in the urban core." Wilson says it's ironic PeaceHealth left downtown Eugene after claiming that it couldn't build a taller hospital on less land. "They wouldn't do nine stories downtown, but they'll do a nine story building way out in nowhere's-ville." Concern about the scenic riverfront area goes beyond views. Anne Heinsoo of Springfield says the riparian area should be protected for its ecological value. "It should be protected and preserved rather than developed as a major health facility that will snarl traffic and stick out like a sore thumb." Jaqua says the noise and light pollution from the big development will "take away the present serenity of the starry night sky." Critics point to specific language in local and state planning documents calling for protection of such riverside natural areas. PeaceHealth says it plans to comply with any laws protecting the riparian area and any ecological threat is "based wholly on speculation." Building along the river could be hazardous to the hospital as well. PeaceHealth says its "exhaustive analysis" of river flooding in the area shows that the proposed facility won't violate state, local and federal rules against building in the floodplain. But Michael Hughes, a hydrologist consultant hired by CHOICES, says errors and potential errors in PeaceHealth's flood analysis "makes the subject property vulnerable to catastrophic flooding, even if flood protection or mitigation is provided." Hughes says efforts to elevate the hospital and other structures above anticipated floods are "likely to significantly" increase flooding on lower parts of the site and adjacent properties. The Endangered Species Act protection of fish in the river "is likely to make the dredge and fill activities needed for development difficult to permit." Traffic Snarl PeaceHealth says its 2,200 employee hospital won't make traffic congestion worse in the area. PeaceHealth traffic consultant JRH Engineering analyzed the traffic impact of a proposed 1.8 million square feet of hospital and medical office buildings and 900 units of housing at RiverBend. "It works," says Jim Hanks of JRH. But critics say PeaceHealth's traffic analysis is deeply flawed. "That such a major development can be assessed to have such minimal impacts is incredulous and calls into question the assumptions of the analysis," says Rob Zako, a local transportation advocate working with CHOICES. [Map: Traffic snarls would make access difficult even on good days, critics say.] Even PeaceHealth's own traffic analysis includes hints at the massive amount of congestion the hospital will produce. Westbound rush-hour traffic at the already snarled Gateway/Beltline intersection will increase eight fold to almost 2,000 cars after the hospital is built. PeaceHealth will directly account for one-third of the increase or 505 cars. Traffic turning south on I-5 would almost double to 715 cars at rush hour. PeaceHealth would directly account for two-thirds of the new congestion. DLCD questions whether PeaceHealth's traffic impact complies with state and local planning rules. "It is not clear to the department how moving the major operations of PeaceHealth to an edge location will facilitate meeting community planning objectives," Radabaugh says. Nearby residents are concerned the area will choke with cars. "The traffic congestion in the Gateway area is bad now ... The hospital and associated development will make the situation much worse," say Ken and Barbara Cerotsky of Springfield. PeaceHealth's traffic analysis does not use the usual Institute of Transportation Engineers formula for estimating congestion impacts from development. PeaceHealth argues that it should use its own formula that produces lower traffic impacts because the hospital will be located next to medical office buildings. The Oregon Department of Transportation expressed concern that the PeaceHealth analysis didn't meet state legal requirements. To address the issue, ODOT negotiated a "trip cap" with PeaceHealth of 1,840 trips from the hospital at the peak afternoon rush hour. But Wilson, Zako and other critics say the trip cap won't protect the area from traffic snarl. The cap doesn't apply to the large amount of residential development PeaceHealth has to build at the site to comply with planning rules. "It's obvious that the housing plus the hospital plus the commercial plus the medical services would generate much more traffic," says Wilson. PeaceHealth can also easily remove the "cap" with a minor amendment process once the hospital has its approvals in hand, Wilson says. "The trip cap is, in fact, no cap at all." Another problem with the trip cap is that it's set to not cause gridlock by 2018 when major road projects in the area are scheduled for completion. But PeaceHealth plans to open the hospital in 2007, "leaving area roads struggling to catch up for a decade or more," Wilson says. "Real compliance would require almost $100 million in new roads on or before the date the hospital and associated commercial facilities become operational." Critics also question whether PeaceHealth's massive development will cause a development boom in the surrounding area that will further snarl roads. "Additional development could generate more traffic and greater impacts," DLCD warns. The hospital "exerts a pull on the development of the entire region," Zako says. Drive-In Hospital DLCD and other critics question how moving so many jobs from downtown Eugene to the edge of Springfield will comply with the state and regional TransPlan goals to reduce car use. PeaceHealth will move 2,200 jobs to the fringe "without addressing how the proposed land use pattern helps to promote more non-automobile trips," DLCD writes. PeaceHealth must "assure that there will be adequate mode shift away from automobile reliance." DLCD says how Springfield handles PeaceHealth will be a "bellwether" to gauge the success of TransPlan's efforts in reducing reliance on cars. Kevin Matthews of Friends of Eugene says the massive hospital move will "drive such an increase in VMT [vehicle miles traveled] as to probably overwhelm all other ongoing positive efforts." DLCD says PeaceHealth's analysis should have included a comparison of the traffic impacts of locating the hospital in the urban core. "The department believes that the PeaceHealth application and review process would benefit from a wider presentation of alternatives." PeaceHealth says Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service to the area will mitigate traffic impacts. But critics say LTD doesn't have the money to build and run BRT to the distant location. "It seems like a really unreasonable long shot" to expect BRT to serve the hospital in north Springfield, Wilson says. "No funding is in sight" for the expensive BRT extension which could require taking residential front yards for right away along Harlow Road, Wilson says. While 500 buses a day serve the hospital's current location, there is no bus service to the proposed RiverBend site, she says. With no bus service, the new hospital would be very hard to reach for those who physically can't drive or can't afford a car, critics say. DLCD says Springfield should examine requiring a BRT line before the hospital can be built. But PeaceHealth balks at the requirement. "With no guarantee that BRT will be available [by] the proposed date of hospital opening, it is unreasonable to require a condition as suggested by Mr. Radabaugh," development director Farrington says. A key part of TransPlan's effort to reduce driving congestion is nodal development -- compact, walkable areas of mixed use development served by frequent transit. DLCD and Springfield planning staff agree that the hospital should be a nodal development area. But PeaceHealth appears concerned that nodal requirements would restrict its ability to develop the site and have offered only to later "actively consider" nodal development for "a portion" of the larger area. Wilson says she fears the nodal area for RiverBend would be so large and car dependent that it's not really nodal at all. She says it's a "fallacy" to think a regional hospital drawing drivers from across the metro area could be a walkable, transit-oriented node. "Allowing the siting of a 1 million square foot regional medical center that would consume approximately 66 percent of a 'nodal site' is not nodal development," Segel of 1000 Friends agrees. Springfield staff argue that the scale of the hospital would make it inappropriate for siting in Springfield's downtown node because "it would detract from the pedestrian scale of the existing downtown." Zako says moving the hospital from downtown Eugene will hurt the struggling node there. He also doubts the RiverBend node will be served by frequent enough transit to make it viable. DLCD faults Springfield for not including a detailed nodal plan in the analysis of the hospital site. The agency warns that the trip cap for the site could prevent the dense, mixed use development required by nodes. "A critical component of success of a nodal development is its ability to demonstrate reduced reliance upon the automobile," DLCD says. "Urban form follows parking. More parking means less mode shift which means less transit which means more reliance on the automobile and more incentive to produce development which is non-nodal development." PeaceHealth's draft map of the RiverBend development shows at least six large surface parking lots covering much of the site plus two large parking garages. Emergency Access The hospital location will make emergency access difficult, critics say. During a flood that inundates roads to the hospital or an earthquake that destroys bridges or freeway overpasses, getting to the RiverBend hospital would be very difficult. With the hospital separated from 80 percent of the region's population by the river access problems it "would be devastating in catastrophic events," environmentalist Tom Bowerman says. Traffic snarls would make access difficult even on good days, critics say. With the hospital closer to Coburg than many parts of south and west Eugene, RiverBend "would increase the emergency response time for most of Eugene residents," Sacred Heart intensive care nurse Randy Gicker says. PeaceHealth officials claim locating at RiverBend will have no impact on emergency response times. But County Commissioner Peter Sorenson says, "it appears neither staff nor the applicant conducted any studies to determine whether there will be any degradation of these [emergency] services." Public Costs PeaceHealth says it will pay $10 million to cover the added costs of new roads to serve its development. "PeaceHealth does not require a subsidy. Quite the contrary, PeaceHealth is paying more than its fair share of future transportation improvements," says Hanks, the hospital's traffic consultant. But critics say the payment isn't fair at all and won't nearly cover the impact to taxpayers. "We cannot afford $15 million to upgrade the Pioneer Parkway-126 intersection when PeaceHealth will only bring $750,000 to the table," says Linda Shaver of one project on the list of needed improvements. ODOT says if the intersection isn't fixed by the time the hospital opens, the Highway 126 ramps will be choked with "extremely unsafe" back-ups. "A large part of the burden would fall to the area's taxpayers," Wilson says of the road projects needed to serve PeaceHealth. Wilson totals $130 million in area transportation projects that PeaceHealth will rely on that are mostly unfunded. The list includes $38 million for extending BRT to the development but doesn't include the $122 million estimated cost of upgrading the I-5 Beltline interchange. Wilson says the hospital should locate in an urban area already served by roads. "Plainly the community cannot afford these changes." Noting the high cost of the I-5 interchange, Commissioner Sorenson says the county is "concerned that our investment will be negated by the increased traffic" from PeaceHealth. Zako warns, with money tight, needed road projects in other parts of the area could be delayed to serve PeaceHealth with new roads. Civic activist Rob Handy of Eugene notes the region is already struggling to find money to repair cracked I-5 bridges. Public Involvement PeaceHealth says it doesn't need permission from Lane County and Eugene to build at RiverBend. Hospital officials say they aren't legally required to offer public participation in the decision beyond allowing citizens to stand in line for three-minute comment periods at public hearings. But critics question whether such a limited process violates state and local land use goals and rules requiring public involvement in major decisions. DLCD says the big impact of the hospital relocation is a "community-wide event" and "major revision" of local plans that requires approval of Eugene and Lane County officials. Commissioner Sorenson says building all the roads needed for the hospital likely requires revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan that must be approved by the county and Eugene. "TransPlan must be amended," DLCD agrees. Sorenson suggests a regional citizen commission be formed to look into issues of hospital siting. "Hospital facility locations entail large public and private expenses and will impact community healthcare costs, health care accessibility, public infrastructure costs and our regional land use plans for many decades," he says. Such major decisions, "justify substantially greater public involvement." Unlike the County Commission, the pro-development majority on the Eugene City Council wants to leave the decision to Springfield. "I will do everything I can to oppose this," Eugene Mayor Jim Torrey e-mailed in response to Sorenson's letter asking for more intergovernmental cooperation. DLCD and other critics are also concerned that PeaceHealth has set up a process that conceals important information. Many questions about the hospital siting have been deferred to a later master planning and nodal planning process that will proceed after PeaceHealth wins permission to build the hospital on the site. "PeaceHealth wants to do it this way because they can avoid talking about what they want to do until it's too late to stop them," Wilson says. The process "makes it so hard to figure out what's going on," she says. Springfield planners are "basically just rubber stamping in advance without seeing the details," Wilson says. "No other development has ever been done this way," she says. "You're approving it before you even see what you're approving." If RiverBend is approved under this process, it will be too late to improve the project, Wilson says. Springfield will be giving away "all their power to say no." PeaceHealth has resisted public involvement from the beginning, Wilson says. "When the city of Eugene tried to force even minor public discussion, PeaceHealth stormed out of the city for the supposedly more 'development friendly' Springfield venue," she says. But state law still "requires adequate public participation in major decisions such as where to site the region's largest employer and hospital emergency service facilities." DLCD agrees. The process of deferring master plan and nodal development decisions and information, "may make full compliance with [state land use] Goal 1 most tedious, at best." To avoid a more difficult Metro Plan amendment that could require permission from Eugene and Lane County, PeaceHealth is trying to use a loophole to avoid rezoning its land to commercial, critics charge. Land Misuse [Photo: To avoid a more difficult Metro Plan amendment that could require permission from Eugene and Lane County, PeaceHealth is trying to use a loophole to avoid rezoning its land to commercial, critics charge. PeaceHealth says planning rules allow it to build a regional medical center on residential zoned land.] DLCD says the land should be rezoned commercial because the loophole PeaceHealth wants to use allows small clinics in neighborhoods, but not major hospitals. "There is nothing in our records that indicate that this scope and scale of development was intended." PeaceHealth attorney Pfeiffer says DLCD's "allegations" are untrue and have no legal merit. But Wilson says, "PeaceHealth's assertions and attacks on DLCD are nothing more than red herrings." The use of the loophole is "egregious," she says. State and local planning rules require PeaceHealth to make up for the housing that will not be built on the residentially zoned hospital site. To mitigate, PeaceHealth says it will build about 800 housing units on the site in addition to the hospital and medical office buildings. Wilson and Segel say PeaceHealth plans to accomplish this by building housing in the floodplain. "The applicant offers no 'concrete' proposal for accommodating the loss of this residential inventory, but does indicate their intent to provide housing in the floodplain." Segel says. DLCD says the site is a "very important" component of the region's limited supply of residential land to meet housing needs. The agency says without the hospital, up to 3,200 housing units could be built on the site and questions whether PeaceHealth's proposed 800 units complies with land use rules. To balance jobs and housing in the nodal area and limit long-distance driving, DLCD says PeaceHealth should provide more housing. "The PeaceHealth application has provided the lowest possible denominator to each of its needed housing calculations," DLCD says. Job Shuffle PeaceHealth says approval of its project will bring 2,200 new jobs to Springfield. But critics say the jobs aren't new at all but relocations that will hurt downtown Eugene. "Employment shifts are not new jobs, they are displaced jobs," Segel says. PeaceHealth emergency room nurse Cathy Ellis says the hospital could build a large efficient hospital downtown with garden spaces for a healing environment. "Do not take the heart out of Eugene." But PeaceHealth officials claim leaving a vacant Eugene Clinic building on Olive Street will help downtown Eugene by "provid[ing] an outstanding opportunity for in-fill and redevelopment." Wilson complains, "Nowhere in its narrative does PeaceHealth discuss the impact of lost jobs at its existing facilities, the impact of moving jobs from existing medical offices located near the existing hospital, the impact to the existing businesses in the Gateway area from the increased traffic, or the economic impact to Springfield of losing McKenzie-Willamette Hospital." Spending $300 million on a "resort style" hospital will also result in even more unaffordable local medical and health insurance costs, critics say. "Since their revenue ultimately comes from all of us, they can bleed us with costly charges," says Jan Nelson. Integrity Many critics question whether Springfield officials have the integrity to turn down PeaceHealth. "The deal was done on the day it was announced," Carol James complained. PeaceHealth "will cost this community its very soul." "PeaceHealth is a big entity who's throwing its economic weight around, in essence strong arming Springfield to agree with whatever it wants," says Gail Campbell of Eugene. "PeaceHealth is notorious for its bad faith behavior and ruthless business tactics." Tom Bowerman points to a Springfield values statement supporting a "small town feel" for the city. "Does putting a nine story building on the McKenzie embody and fortify these values?" Wilson says the lines between developers and city officials are blurrier in Springfield. But "The [pro-sprawl] perception is mostly perception and not reality." Greg Shaver, a member of the Springfield Planning Commission, says he's "extremely pro-growth" but still opposes RiverBend as too much for Springfield. "I would love to have a Ferrari, it's a beautiful car, but it's just not going to fit in my garage for a while." If the Springfield Council does approve RiverBend, opponents or the DLCD could appeal to the courts and/or state Land Use Board. DLCD says "major compliance issues" still "remain unresolved" with the development. Wilson says CHOICES is preparing to go to court if necessary. "We'll see." http://www.eugeneweekly.com/archive/03_27_03/coverstory.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 9.ph - PeaceHealth Facilities Progress ------------------------------------------------------------ Prepared by PeaceHealth Public Affairs, 686-6868 PeaceHealth, 3/24/03 PeaceHealthProgress PeaceHealth is moving forward with its plans to build a second hospital campus on the RiverBend site in Springfield. In January, the Springfield Planning Commission recommended to the Springfield City Council that relevant land use plans be modified to pave the way for the development, with some conditions. More than 300 people testified before the Planning Commission and the City Council, with more than 200 in support of the proposal. The City Council will make its decision on the plan amendments on March 31. Meanwhile, PeaceHealth staff are working on the master plan for the entire 160-acre site and intend to submit it to city staff in April. At this point, the construction schedule has not changed and PeaceHealth expects to break ground on the new hospital in 2004 with an opening scheduled for 2007. What does the Planning Commission's recommended 60-foot height restriction mean for the new hospital if the City Council agrees with it? To put the proposed height restriction into perspective, 60 feet is the equivalent of three to four hospital floors -- shorter than McKenzie-Willamette and about half the number of floors of Sacred Heart at Hilyard in Eugene. If the new, 1 million-square-foot hospital were held to that height, the building would need to occupy a much larger ground area. A three- or four-story hospital would push critical services away from one another when, in fact, they need to be closer together. The vision for the hospital is to locate related services and patient rooms near one another so that, for example, a heart patient can see her doctor, have surgery, and recover in a room all in the same area. Proximity of services not only encourages an efficient use of space, but is far better for patients and families. Won't the development block the view of the Coburg hills? Special care has been taken to keep views from surrounding neighborhoods unobstructed. As currently planned, the hospital is situated to one side of the site, is set back from the river farther than is required, and preserves the view of the hills from surrounding properties. The architects have embraced the natural beauty of the property and share the community's desire to have the building complement the site. I'm still concerned about the ease of accessing the RiverBend site from the south side of the river in the event of an emergency. Has this issue been resolved? PeaceHealth plans to maintain its Hilyard Street campus and offer 24-hour comprehensive urgent care services there. In the event of virtually any emergency, this facility could meet all but the most critical health care needs. The new hospital at RiverBend will be built in an area of lower risk for an earthquake than other parts of Eugene/Springfield. Moreover, the structural design of the new hospital will exceed State Building Code requirements to ensure that the new facility will be available for immediate occupancy following a major earthquake. Local emergency medical professionals have confirmed that the location of the new facility does not pose any significant problem. The far more important element in an emergency is the time it takes for an ambulance to reach a person in need of care. Both cities do their best to maintain a 4-minute response time. Once in an ambulance and under the care of highly trained emergency medical technicians, the difference in distance between RiverBend and Hilyard is inconsequential. Keep in mind that for most citizens in Eugene/Springfield, the new hospital will be closer than Sacred Heart currently is. Won't the RiverBend campus significantly impact the traffic in the Gateway/Belt Line area? The transportation system for this growing part of Springfield was earmarked for improvements prior to PeaceHealth's planned development at RiverBend. PeaceHealth has agreed to provide an unprecedented level of funding for transportation improvements, including substantial contributions to the Belt Line/Gateway intersection construction, the Pioneer Parkway extension, and capacity improvements at the interchange of Pioneer Parkway and Highway 126. All of these improvements were deemed necessary before PeaceHealth contemplated a move. A yearlong traffic study that involved a private engineering firm, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the city of Springfield concluded that the PeaceHealth development will not cause key intersections to exceed their design capacity. If the merger of McKenzie-Willamette Hospital with the for-profit Triad Hospitals, Inc., goes through, will PeaceHealth's plans for the RiverBend site change? After looking for a suitably sized parcel of land in Eugene for several years, we feel very fortunate to have found the RiverBend site. Not only does the site provide room to grow, but it is beautiful and serene -- the best possible combination for a health care facility. We're committed to the site, regardless of McKenzie-Willamette's development plans. Reportedly the for-profit Texas-based group is looking for 35 acres to build a 114-bed replacement hospital. That gives some perspective to PeaceHealth's long-held need for a larger parcel such as RiverBend to allow for a 500-bed hospital with supporting medical office buildings, parking, and room to grow as the community requires it. To support a growing population, the community needs more beds and services. While we are pleased with the preliminary announcement that McKenzie-Willamette has found a solution to its financial situation and can avoid bankruptcy, there is much to learn about the details of the transaction. We are encouraged that representatives of McKenzie-Willamette are suggesting publicly that the hospital will provide the same levels of Medicare, Medicaid and charity care under new ownership, and we look forward to the state Attorney General's approval of the purchase subject to this commitment, and other issues that contribute to the community good. Can the community afford two new hospitals? Both hospitals had planned major construction projects prior to McKenzie-Willamette's announcement of the merger with Triad. (In fact, McKenzie-Willamette had put its construction plans on hold; Triad's debt-financed investment will allow them to move forward.) Both hospitals have outlived their useful lives. Conventional wisdom suggests that the life cycle for hospital buildings is 35 years -- Sacred Heart's oldest buildings are nearly double that. PeaceHealth plans to finance construction on both campuses from a combination of cash reserves, debt and private donations. Because PeaceHealth traditionally carries substantially less debt than a company such as Triad, borrowing for the planned construction is not expected to stress its balance sheet or raise health care costs in the community. Typically facility costs account for approximately 10 percent of a hospital's annual budget. New technology, labor and pharmaceuticals are significantly larger contributors to the cost of health care than are facility costs. More recently, the cost shifts or "hidden taxes" caused by reduced payments from Medicare and Medicaid have contributed significantly to hospital price increases. Any prolonged delay of PeaceHealth's proposed facilities renewal plans will likely add considerable cost to the overall project and will put at risk the hospital's ability to provide the high levels of care the community deserves and has come to expect. Exceptional medicine happens in an exceptional work place. Modern Healthcare magazine recently named Sacred Heart as one of the Top 100 Cardiac Hospitals in the country. This is the second time that Sacred Heart Medical Center has been named to the list. Cardiac hospitals around the country were compared using seven measures of clinical quality and operational efficiency. For the second year in a row, PeaceHealth Oregon Region was named one of the 100 Best Companies To Work For by Oregon Business magazine in its annual survey of work places. PeaceHealth placed 35th, up from last year's 45th spot. The 100 Best Companies list recognizes 50 large companies (with 250 or more employees) and 50 small companies for excellence in several categories including employee benefits, organizational communication, rewards and recognition and working environment. http://www.peacehealth.org/Community/owv/News/peacehealth_progress_Mar03.htm =============== McKenzie-Willamette's Plans ============== ------------------------------------------------------------ 10.mw - McKenzie-Willamette and Triad are forming a joint venture ------------------------------------------------------------ By McKenzie-Willamette Hospital Advertisement in The Register-Guard, 3/28/03, Page A7 McKenzie-Willamette Hospital and traid Hospitals, Inc. are forming a joint venture. Here's a summary of the proposed transaction. Purpose Triad Hospitals, Inc.* and McKenzie-Willamette Hospital will form a new company to operate the existing hospital and simultaneously develop and construct an acute care hospital. The new hospital will be developed and constructed by the new company as soon as practicable. * Note: References to Triad refer to Triad Hospitals, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Development of the New Hospital The new company will plan, design and construct the new hospital at a mutually agreed upon location to be owned by the new company. The partners will decide the precise location after they obtain input from McKenzie-Willamette Hospital employees and physicians, as well as local citizens. Community Benefit Standards The new company will 1) accept Medicare and Medicaid patients, 2) accept all emergency patients without regard to their ability to pay, 3) maintain an open medical staff, 4) provide public health programs of educational benefit to the community, and 5) promote public health, wellness and welfare to the community by providing healthcare services at a reasonable cost. Services The new hospital will provide a 24-hour emergency medical department, and at least 114 licensed acute care beds, and all other services required for a licensed acute care hospital in Oregon. Ownership of the New Company * Triad will contribute $80 million in cash to the new company; * McKenzie-Willamette will contribute the property, plant, equipment, and working capital associated with the existing hospital to the new company. The ownership interests in the new company will be equal to the capital contributions of each party. Note: Once the parties have established a value for McKenzie-Willamette's assets, the Oregon Attorney General will review the valuation to determine if it is fair. Purchase Option, Right of First Refusal McKenzie-Willamette will have the right to buy additional ownership interests in the new company any time, up to a maximum of 49% of the new company. For the first ten years after the new hospital is built, Triad is required to buy McKenzie-Willamette's interest in the new company at fair market value upon the request of McKenzie-Willamette. The transaction also includes a standard "right of refusal" provision as well as an agreement on the part of each party not to compete with the other in Lane County, Oregon. Board of Directors of the New Company Both partners will govern the new company equally. The Board will have six members: three appointed by McKenzie-Willamette and three appointed by Triad. The new company will be a for-profit, tax paying company. The new company Board will have the authority to: * approve the hiring of the existing and new hospital CEO, * approve all budgets for the new company, * add or discontinue certain medical services, * evaluate the amount of charity care provided by the new company, and * make determinations about hospital accreditation. Both parties wane to enable McKenzie-Willamette to retain tax exempt status so it can continue to raise funds to help the hospital achieve its healthcare mission. To ensure this, the three McKenzie-Willamette Hospital members of the Board will have the exclusive right to * terminate the existing or new hospital CEO, * name the Board chair, * require changes to the structure of the new company if it fails to meet the Community Benefit Standards. Board of trustees of the Hospital Twelve members will be appointed to the hospital Board of Trustees: six will be physicians from the hospital's active staff; six will be local community members. The Trustees will * adopt a vision, mission and value statement for the hospital, * participate in strategic planning and business decisions, * monitor performance improvement, * grant, suspend or terminate medical staff privileges, * identify service and educational opportunities, and * have other powers as delegated by the new company Board of Directors. Operation of the Hospital Triad will operate the hospital and will offer employment to all active employees of McKenzie-Willamette. All employees' years of service with McKenzie-Willamette will be counted towards eligibility under Triad's benefit programs. Responsibilities of McKenzie-Willamette Hospital AII financial liabilities incurred prior to finalizing this agreement remain McKenzie-Willamette's responsibility. McKenzie-Willamette will help obtain all necessary regulatory approvals for the partnership, help find a site for the new hospital, and pay off its long-term debt and other liabilities when the transaction is finalized. Charity Care The new company will continue to provide charity/indigent care in accordance with the Community Benefit Standards. We have submitted this information to Hardy Myers, Oregon Attorney General, for review. A public hearing will be scheduled regarding this proposed transaction. Please watch for details so you can attend and comment about this proposal. Questions? Contact Rosie Pryor, Director of Marketing and Planning, McKenzie-Willamette Hospital, 1460 G Street Springfield, OR 97477-4197 http://www.mckweb.com ================ Ambulance Boundary Rules ================ ------------------------------------------------------------ 11.rg - Ambulance policy changes for trial period ------------------------------------------------------------ By Matt Cooper The Register-Guard, 3/29/03, Page B1 Springfield's been harping on Eugene to reconsider its ambulance coverage policy, and Eugene is listening. The three local fire departments -- Eugene, Springfield and Lane Rural -- plan to announce a six-month trial period for ambulance coverage in Eugene as early as next week, Springfield Fire Chief Dennis Murphy said Thursday. Murphy is among those who criticized Eugene's "hard boundaries" policy, in which Eugene handles all emergencies within city limits, regardless of whether another department's ambulances are closer. Murphy cried foul because his city has a closest-ambulance policy and said citizens of both cities deserve nothing less. Eugene Fire Chief Tom Tallon agreed that the most critical calls -- "e" or "echo" calls, which include people who aren't breathing -- should be served by the closest ambulance. But now he's going a step further: "D" or "delta" calls -- that could be someone with chest pains or who is unconscious -- will get the closest ambulance in the trial period. That's about one-third of calls, and Murphy said "it's a real significant improvement." Tallon said his department will reclaim some of the "delta" calls after the trial period. Matt Cooper can be reached at 338-2317 or mcooper@guardnet.com. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/03/29/b1.cr.spcitybeat.0329.html =================== Nearby Developments ================== ------------------------------------------------------------ 12.rg - Sony will lay off 1,000 workers ------------------------------------------------------------ From Register-Guard and News Service Reports The Register-Guard, 3/29/03, Page C17 Sony Music Entertainment is making sweeping layoffs, in the first reorganizational move by its new chairman and chief executive officer, Andrew Lack. Lack, who succeeded Tommy Mottola as chairman and chief executive about three months ago, plans to eliminate 1,000 jobs in the United States and abroad as part of a broad cost-reduction plan that would try to cut expenses of more than $100 million a year, people close to the company said on Thursday. They said that the plan was scheduled to take effect on Thursday and Friday in New York. The cuts include about 300 positions in the United States. The layoffs will affect people who work in distribution, manufacturing, administrative support, corporate offices and both record labels, Columbia Records and Epic Records. It was not immediately clear whether the move will have any effect on the Sony CD factory in Springfield. The factory, which mainly produces Sony music CDs, has about 290 employees. The layoffs come as Lack seeks to restructure, streamline and leave an imprint on a company that was run for 14 years by Mottola, an industry giant. Mottola left under a pall after the music division experienced huge financial losses as its market share continued to shrink. Lack, the former president and chief operating officer of NBC, was hired by Howard Stringer, chief of the Sony Corp. of America, in the hopes that he could help improve the division's finances. "We are also combining some functions, most notably in sales and distribution, in order to minimize duplication of efforts and more efficiently serve the needs of our artists, employees and customers," Lack said in a memo to employees. In about two weeks, Lack is expected to announce sweeping management changes that will dismantle the structure of Mottola's longtime administration but keep many of its players. Sony is the third-largest music company in the nation, after BMG, which is owned by Bertelsmann, and Universal Music Group, which is owned by Vivendi Universal. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/03/29/c17.bz.sony.0329.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 13.rg - Heart of it all ------------------------------------------------------------ By Matt Cooper The Register-Guard, 3/29/03, Page B1 Where's the heart of Springfield? Gateway Mall? City Hall? Island Park? An urban designer from Maryland suggests that the answer is "none of the above." Ernest Bleinberger of Hunter Interests Inc., an Annapolis-based development consulting firm, will share his plan for a true city center -- "the heart of Springfield," in his words -- during a public forum at 5:30 p.m. April 14 in City Hall. The Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce hired Bleinberger to dream up a convention-sized meeting space. Bleinberger will unveil a "civic place" with a meeting facility and several acres of restaurants, shops, promenades, lodges, offices, housing, garden areas and parks, all of it along the Willamette River, he said. Bleinberger said the University of Oregon and other institutions and organizations are welcome to join the effort and, assuming there is support to move forward, the next step would be a four- to six-month effort to figure out how to pay for it. The chamber and the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County, Oregon, are "supporting (the design) in the hopes the project that comes out is embraced by a wider community -- the cities, the counties and individuals," said Dan Egan, the chamber's executive director. Matt Cooper can be reached at 338-2317 or mcooper@guardnet.com. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/03/29/b1.cr.spcitybeat.0329.html ================== Transportation Issues ================= ------------------------------------------------------------ 14.rg - Federal dollars limited ------------------------------------------------------------ By Joe Mosley The Register-Guard, 3/30/03, Page B1 And then there's the money thing. With war costs looming -- just last week, President Bush sent a bill to Congress that would authorize a $75 billion "down payment" on the U.S.-led Iraqi invasion -- city and county governments are being told to expect slim pickings from the federal pork barrel. Even during local officials' "United Front" lobbying trip to Washington, D.C., early this month, the message from Oregon's congressional delegation was to hope for the best but expect somewhat less. "Congressional members and staff pledged to try to achieve as many successful funding outcomes for local projects as possible," says a memo to city councilors from Jason Heuser, Eugene's intergovernmental relations manager. "Members and staff also warned, though, that federal fiscal constraints in a slow economy, further complicated by the cost of going to war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, could result in reduced levels of domestic discretionary spending." Interpretation: plenty of competition for every scrap of pork. Joe Mosley can be reached at 338-2384 or send e-mail to jmosley@guardnet.com. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/03/30/b1.cr.citybeat.0330.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 15.rg - Parkway opponents laud state's ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ By Joe Harwood The Register-Guard, 3/26/03, Page D1 Foes of the West Eugene Parkway claimed victory Tuesday after a state appeals panel ruled that last year's approval of the $88 million, 5.8-mile bypass failed to comply with state planning goals. In its ruling, the state Land Use Board of Appeals found that four local governments failed to consider or justify impacts that the parkway would have on farmland and natural resources. "It's a major victory when you get a ruling like this from LUBA," said Kevin Matthews, president of Friends of Eugene. "We didn't just win on one point, we won on several." Land use watchdog groups Friends of Eugene and 1,000 Friends of Oregon along with two Eugene residents last August appealed the parkway's approval. In their opposition, the groups contended that state protections for wetlands and rules for road-building were overridden without justification by Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and the Lane Transit District. The appeals panel found that the governments made four errors in approving the project. The approval failed to explain, as required under state planning goals, how the parkway would affect adjacent farmland and how any negative impacts would be reduced, according to the ruling. The panel also found that Eugene and the other jurisdictions did not adequately explain how the parkway meets a state rule requiring that projects fit into an integrated land use and transportation plan. The remaining two errors are technical and include a factual dispute over whether the parkway would harm vegetation and wildlife. The panel concluded that a map submitted by the city of Eugene does not show the exact location of the vegetation and wildlife area and whether it is inside or outside a protected wetland zone. If built, the parkway would run from the west end of Sixth and Seventh avenues to a spot on Highway 126 just beyond Green Hill Road. The project would require filling about 40 acres of wetlands, a loss that opponents say is unacceptable. Eugene voters have twice (in 1986 and 2001) approved the parkway project. With Eugene taking the lead, the local governments will now have to reconsider the parkway's approval and correct the deficiencies identified by LUBA if the project is to go forward. Bob Stacey, executive director of 1,000 Friends of Oregon, said reopening the parkway discussion and exploring alternatives to the project is the outcome he and others wanted. Aside from losing wetlands, opponents have argued that the parkway would lead to urban sprawl and would not ease traffic congestion as promised. They seek a less expensive alternative that focuses on improving or expanding the existing street system. The project's advocates maintain that without the parkway -- envisioned in one form or another for five decades -- heavy congestion in west Eugene will worsen and choke off economic development. Eugene Mayor Jim Torrey, an outspoken parkway supporter, could not be reached for comment Tuesday. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/03/26/d1.cr.wep.0326.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 16.rg - Officials downplay effects of ruling on parkway ------------------------------------------------------------ By Joe Mosley The Register-Guard, 3/27/03, Page D2 It's caused rumblings like indigestion after a spicy meal, but an adverse ruling from an appellate panel doesn't necessarily mean a dire prognosis for the controversial West Eugene Parkway project, Eugene officials said Wednesday. "We've been trying to plan for our future for quite a few years now," City Councilor Nancy Nathanson said. "This just means we need to take some more time." Critics of the $88 million, 5.8-mile parkway declared victory after the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals remanded the issue to local governments on Tuesday, ruling that initial plans for the bypass have failed in four instances to meet state land use goals. But city attorney Emily N. Jerome described the appellate board's decision as "really favorable to the local governments," and suggested that none of the concerns highlighted by LUBA should jeopardize the road project. "The kind of issues that are remanded here are certainly not the kind that would cause any change in the parkway," Jerome said. "It's really just an exercise in writing." Councilors probably will be briefed on LUBA's ruling soon after their spring break ends April 9, she said. If directed to do so, city planners and legal staff will then begin drafting amended findings to support the city's challenged positions. "Because of the high interest in this item, I think (the City Council) will be looking at it again real soon," Jerome said. Land use watchdog groups Friends of Eugene and 1,000 Friends of Oregon, along with two Eugene residents, filed the appeal last August -- the first of several legal challenges they've promised in an attempt to scuttle the parkway. The groups contended in their appeal that state protections for wetlands and rules for road-building were overridden without justification by Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and the Lane Transit District. The appeals panel found that the governments made four errors in approving the project: failure to explain how the parkway would affect adjacent farmland and how any negative impacts would be reduced; failure to adequately explain how the parkway meets a state rule requiring that projects fit into an integrated land use and transportation plan; and two technical errors that include a factual dispute over whether the parkway would harm vegetation and wildlife. The panel concluded that a map submitted by the city of Eugene does not show the exact location of the vegetation and wildlife area and whether it is inside or outside a protected wetland zone. "It's not unusual for a complex decision to be remanded to the (originating) jurisdiction," said Nathanson, who had not yet received a copy of the LUBA ruling. "Until I have a chance to read exactly what they have to say, I can't make too much of it. "I'm treating it as a process issue, more than a policy issue -- at least as of right now." The City Council decided in a contentious, split vote last July to alter local transportation, wetland and land use plans to accommodate the parkway. While it's been largely a Eugene issue -- city staff worked intensively on the amendments, and most of the public debate took place before the City Council -- the Lane County Board of Commissioners, Springfield City Council and Lane Transit District board each had to sign off on changes to metro-area planning documents. Each of the four governments will now have to agree on any revisions that are made in response to the LUBA ruling. "(The ruling) calls for a few rather specific things to be dealt with, but that doesn't mean when it comes back to all of the elected bodies that the discussion won't broaden," said Eugene City Councilor David Kelly, who opposed the land use amendments and has consistently urged his colleagues to consider alternatives to the parkway. Opponents to the project have maintained that it would encourage sprawl in west Eugene and shift traffic congestion from West 11th Avenue onto Sixth and Seventh avenues. The parkway would run from the west ends of Sixth and Seventh to a spot on Highway 126 just beyond Green Hill Road, with the westernmost portion running through wetlands and across Amazon Creek. Proponents have argued the parkway is necessary to prevent west Eugene neighborhoods from becoming isolated by their lack of access to downtown. They have contended that existing roadways are inadequate to handle either residential traffic or through-traffic from Highway 126. Eugene voters have twice -- in 1986 and 2001 -- approved the parkway project. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/03/27/d2.cr.parkway.0327.html ======================= Other News ======================= ------------------------------------------------------------ 17.rg - 'Doctor, I can't afford it' ------------------------------------------------------------ By Donald W. McCormack Jr., Springfield Letter to The Register-Guard, 3/29/03 In his March 16 letter to the editor, Jeff Jones propagates a myth that is simply not true. He says: "Health care in this country is the best in the world." The World Health Organization has ranked the overall quality of health care in the U.S. as the 37th best in the world. The only area we rank as No. 1 is in the cost of health care. It is true that the very wealthy, including foreigners, have access to very high quality health care in this country. But for many Americans, access to health care is becoming more and more restricted. For two decades I worked as a health care provider. During that time, not a single day passed in my practice that I did not hear, "Doctor, I can't afford it" or "Doctor, it costs too much." I cannot tell you how frustrating it was to see my patients leave without the care they needed. I no longer practice due to a medical disability, and I have joined the ranks of the 45 million other uninsured Americans in this country. Study after study, as well as the experience of the 36 countries that provide better health care at less cost, has shown that universal health care would provide better quality of care for less cost. I became even more of a believer when a surgical procedure was prescribed for me, and I had to say, "Doctor, I can't afford it." http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/03/29/ed.lettersop.0329.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 18.rg - LeBow and Allcott: Malpractice crisis compromises patient access ------------------------------------------------------------ By John LeBow and John Allcott Commentary in The Register-Guard, 3/25/03 Several recent Register-Guard pieces describe the medical malpractice crisis in Oregon. This crisis affects access -- that is, seeing your doctor. We, the Lane Independent Primary Care Physicians, are 70 primary care physicians in the Eugene-Springfield area. Malpractice reform is very important to our ability to care for our patients. In addition to caring for patients, we also manage our independent medical practices and employ several hundred people. When a prominent expense such as malpractice insurance escalates at a dizzying pace, the viability of our businesses is directly affected. One explanation of the crisis that has been put forth is that insurance companies are in a financial crunch because they have lost so much money in the stock market in the past two years. Fact: Northwest Physicians Mutual, one of two major companies still left in Oregon that will write medical malpractice insurance, has a policy dictating that no more than 15 percent of its entire portfolio be invested in stocks; the rest is distributed in very conservative investments. The ability to pay off settlements is not impaired by the insurance company's business practices. Premiums have approximately doubled since 1998. This crisis is occurring because settlements, unrestrained by any cap on payments, have outstripped the financial resources that insurance companies obtain from the premiums we pay. Is it possible that physicians have become extraordinarily incompetent since 1999, when the Oregon Supreme Court (in Lakin vs. Senco Products) struck down the $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages? Two simple comparisons tell the tale. Until 1998, there were less than 10 medical malpractice verdicts and settlements of $1 million or more in Oregon. From 1999 to today, there have been 25 verdicts and settlements exceeding $1 million. Insurance companies paid out $60.8 million in losses in 2001, compared with $15.1 million in 1998. Obviously, this is no coincidence. It's also quite apparent that insurance companies cannot continue to sustain losses of this magnitude and afford to stay in business. Are there medical errors? Do patients deserve a method of compensation for these errors? Undeniably, yes. Although we continually strive to improve safe delivery of high-quality health care, the perfect human or the perfect system is not at hand. There will always be a need for a system to deal with the problems that are inherent to the delivery of medical care. A recent article warned that if the current system is changed a patient could wind up unable to pay for basic medical needs and living expenses. This is simply not true. The caps we advocate are for noneconomic costs -- for example, pain and suffering -- and not for medical care. The projected costs of care for the injured patient in these settlements are carefully reviewed and protected. Moreover, in a system with caps there is always an appeal mechanism if patients feel that there is a gross discrepancy between the cap limit and their specific situation. If losses continue at this pace, no company will be willing to write malpractice insurance, the rates will be unaffordable or both. Either development will compromise patient care by limiting the access to some specialties or, if insurance cannot be procured, make it impossible for a doctor to continue practicing. This is where the crisis directly affects our relationship to patients. Seven of our LIPP doctors who deliver babies have stopped or will stop their obstetrical practice this year because they cannot obtain malpractice insurance at an affordable rate, if at all. Obviously, it will be nearly impossible to recruit high-quality physicians into the state because of the negative malpractice climate. We would wonder why our medical school would continue to train family doctors to deliver babies! We encourage The Register-Guard to report further on the California Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975, mentioned in a March 19 article. Barring congressional action on caps or another carefully crafted system, the MICRA program provides a way to help patients who have been injured, compensate the attorneys involved, and provide stability for physicians. Through our Legislature we could institute such a principled and effective program now. For our patients, our employees and ourselves, we stand in support of this answer. Dr. John Allcott, M.D., is president of Lane Independent Primary Care Physicians. Dr. John LeBow, D.O., is chairman of LIPP's Physician Recruitment & Retention Committee. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/03/25/ed.col.lebow.0325.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 19.rg - Editorial: Fix malpractice system ------------------------------------------------------------ As it is, we get neither justice nor health care Editorial The Register-Guard, 3/25/03 The U.S. House of Representatives voted recently to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases, responding to complaints that rising insurance premiums are forcing doctors to curtail their practices. The complaints are undeniably valid in many parts of the country, including Oregon, where many physicians are planning to quit providing high-risk services such as obstetrics or have quit already. Restrictions on patients' right to sue, however, are not likely to be a sufficient response to the crisis. It's easy to see how the court system found itself at the center of Oregon's part of this national debate. In 1999, the Oregon Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a $500,000 cap on pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice cases. Doctors' liability for injuries is theoretically unlimited -- says one Eugene neurologist, "I'm putting my house at risk every time I go to work." The cost of insuring against this liability has risen sharply, in some cases quadrupling. The amounts awarded by juries to injured parties in medical malpractice cases in Oregon also quadrupled since the court decision, to $60 million in 2001. Four hundred malpractice suits are pending in Oregon, totaling $1.5 billion in claims -- or $300,000 for every practicing physician in the state. The tight connection between the court's decision, the mushrooming cost of malpractice insurance and the dramatic spike in jury awards offers a strong argument for the bill approved by the U.S. House, or for proposals to amend the state Constitution to allow a cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. The cap kept Oregon malpractice insurance costs down until 1999, and similar limits have acted as a brake on premium increases in states such as California. People injured by medical malpractice would still be able to go to court and sue doctors for the actual damages they suffered. A cap on pain-and-suffering awards, however, would relieve only a symptom of the ills plaguing the health care system. The courts simply are not a good place for dealing with the consequences of medical mistakes. Most people who are injured by a medical error never go to court. The few who do can't count on receiving a settlement or a jury award that is proportionate to the injury suffered. Far too much of the money paid out ends up in the hands of lawyers, not injured patients. And a cap, while limiting physicians' and their insurers' exposure to one type of risk, would also deny some people the ability to be compensated for real pain and suffering. A better approach would start by acknowledging that mistakes in medical treatment will occur, simply because neither human beings nor health care systems are perfect. The causes of mistakes must be identified and, where possible, corrected. Incompetent physicians should be disciplined or barred from practice. But some people will always need further medical care, financial compensation or both because of medical errors. Turning a few of those cases into high-stakes fault-finding exercises in courtrooms and ignoring the rest serves no one. If errors are understood to be a reducible but unavoidable by-product of medical treatment, the search for a better way of responding to them can begin. The workers' compensation system provides one model. A worker who is hurt on the job doesn't go to court -- he or she is given medical treatment and income-replacement benefits scaled to the severity of the injury. An employer can still be sued for negligence that leads to a workplace injury. But no worker who is hurt on the job has to prove wrongdoing to obtain compensation and care. A similar no-fault system in medical care would help more people and cost less money. An additional problem arises from the fashion in which physicians are paid for the services they provide. If doctors could simply increase their rates to cover the cost of increased insurance premiums, their complaints would not be so loud. But payments for medical services are often fixed, primarily by Medicaid and Medicare policies. In Oregon, reimbursements for some services are so low that physicians lose money each time they treat a Medicaid patient. Rising malpractice insurance rates and other costs must be passed on to a shrinking pool of other patients, or absorbed by the physician. A state or federal cap on pain-and-suffering awards would do little to address these problems. Other proposals being promoted by the Oregon Medical Association, such as a cap on lawyers' contingency fees and provisions for periodic payments of damage awards, would also provide only slight relief. The manner in which Americans pay for health care and for the consequences of medical errors serves neither doctors nor patients, and points to the need for more fundamental reforms. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/03/25/ed.edit.malpractice.0325.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 20.rg - Thousands get health plan reprieve ------------------------------------------------------------ By David Steves The Register-Guard, 3/28/03, Page C2 Salem -- The state averted kicking 17,000 low-income people off the Oregon Health Plan on Thursday as planned for missing that day's premium-payment deadline. The last-minute reprieve was attributed to "administrative issues and client confusion," according to a statement released by the Oregon Department of Human Services, which oversees the health plan for low-income people. "We had clients who couldn't get through on toll-free phone lines, people who believed they could pay at DHS field offices, and questions about the amount of premiums owed," DHS Director Jean Thorne said. "As a result, we know some people who intended to pay were prevented from doing so." It was to be the first time the state terminated OHP enrollees for failing to pay premiums. Officials had issued warnings of the Thursday deadline for February premiums, which ranged from $6 to $20 a month. The monthly payments are required for the 100,000 people on the "OHP Standard" version of the health plan. Officials said the monthly premiums -- and the termination of coverage for those who don't pay them -- reflected efforts to operate the Oregon Health Plan the way private health plans are run. Those who lose coverage for failure to pay would not be eligible to re-enroll for six months. Critics say that's more restrictive than the rules that commercial plans operate under. Thorne said reprieve was for only one month; her department will make changes that include clarifying billing instructions, adding phone lines and other steps. The department has posted additional information on its Web site at www.dhs.state.or. us/healthplan/data_pubs/ohp2intro.html. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/03/28/c2.cr.ohprepreive.0328.html ------------------------------------------------------------ 21.sn - Arlie & Co. hires executive assistant ------------------------------------------------------------ Springfield News, 3/26/03 Laurelle Gardner has joined Eugene-based Arlie & Co., a land development and property management company, as an executive assistant to the Planning and Development Group. She will also help with meeting coordination and specific project management tasks. Gardner, who graduated with honors from the Australian Business College in Perth, Western Australia, was previously an executive assistant with Chambers Communications Corp. in Eugene. She has more than 10 years of experience as an executive assistant, working in legal, property management and investment banking industries in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. http://www.springfieldnews.com/articles/2003/03/26/business/news3.txt =========================== Key ========================== "Health Options Digest" is best read with an email program that recognizes links to web pages. It includes leads from and links to stories and opinions from the following publications: rg = The Register-Guard sn = Springfield News ew = Eugene Weekly cn = Comic News ode = Oregon Daily Emerald cc = City Club of Eugene Newsletter or = Oregonian ac = Arlie & Company For some stories, two links are given. Use the first link if the story is still current; use the second if another issue has since been published. ========================= Credits ======================== "Health Options Digest" is published once every week or so by the Coalition for Health Options In Central Eugene-Springfield (CHOICES) as a service to the community. It is intended as an unbiased digest of news and opinion related to proposed changes in health care options for the community. The purpose of "Health Options Digest" is to inform, not editorialize. Please forward your copy of "Health Options Digest" to a friend. If you know of someone who should be on the CHOICES email list, or for questions about your subscription, send email to rzako@efn.org. ======================== More Info ======================= Please visit our web site for info about how you can contact us, the local papers, elected officials, PeaceHealth and McKenzie-Willamette: http://www.efn.org/~choices