The King County Journal reports "Valley Medical annexation foes win change"
A King County Superior Court judge Monday forced Valley Medical Center to include information on the tax burden residents in east and southeast King County would have to pay if the public hospital's annexation proposal is approved by the voters May 16.The hospital district didn't even provide a more detailed explanatory statement for a voter's pamphlet. The whole thing creates an impression that the hospital district was trying to pull a fast one.
hat tip: Bob Edelman
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 21, 2006 09:24 AM | Email This
MAY 16?!?!
these "special" elections need to stop NOW! The only benefit I see to mail-only voting is that they won't be able to sneak this crap in anymore.
Posted by: Eric on April 21, 2006 09:33 AMhttp://www.nomay16taxes.com/index.html
The King County Journal has been on top of this issue. The conduct of Valley Medical has been pretty outrageous.
The YES campaign is run by a California public relations firm. Valley filed on the last possible day for an election and asked King County to declare it an emergency election. Valley ran a telephone survey beforehand to see if local residents would, quote, "Like to have local medical services enhanced." No mention of increased taxes. This was used to claim support for Prop 1. Some community leaders in Maple Valley were quoted as supporting the proposition when they in fact did not.
Valley is using phone surveys to identify supporters. They will then conduct a campaign to encourage turnout of their core supporters. They just need 50% plus one, no minimum turnout required.
Bottom line? Valley ran a campaign to increase the tax rate a few years ago. They freely admitted their hospital was profitable; they were losing big money in their emergency room due to indigent care. That's what this revenue will go toward also. We already contribute to Valley through King County.
BTW...they want to extend their tax service area to within 2200 yards of Enumclaw Hospital.
One more...if one compares this tax rate to other taxes paid by residents of the City of Maple Valley, it's roughly half what the city levies for city operations; roughly half what King County levies for their general fund; roughly half what Tahoma School District levies for maintenance and operations.
The more this is discussed, the less support it has.
Posted by: South County on April 21, 2006 10:45 AMIn essence the people of Maple Valley, myself included, are being asked to support law breakers through more taxes.
I have no problem with public funding of hospitals and even favor a federally chartered national non-profit heath insurance program, but I draw the line at tax increases which are intended to support law breakers and leaches who do not contribute their fair share.
Posted by: Deadwood on April 21, 2006 11:35 AMI am shocked that we have activist judges who can "force" these noble, altruistic denizens of the public good to disclose a small matter of tax increases.
I see the King County Journal is following in the fine example of the Seattle P-I.
Posted by: daisycutter on April 21, 2006 12:10 PMIn a recent election (again not advertised), they managed to stick me with a hospital bill everytime I pay my taxes.
Since that time, I've gotten a large amount of mail advertising, as well as two phone calls from real live people.
Instead of the response they wanted, I told them that before I do any business (outside paying my taxes) with them, I want a listing of all the discounts they provide to the various healthcare payers. Seems this is either a division of Deanron, or simply wannabe's, because I've never gotten it.
These folks are trying to steal from the average person and give to the rich (large payers with large cash reserves) and the poor, aka too hard to collect from.
By law, they must triage anyone that appears on the steps of their emergency room, but are only obligated to treat those that are bleeding, broken, or in imminent danger of death. So why do they need to come after the non-patrons, and draft new ones?
Stephan, you're good at getting public records disclosed, and I'd think that since they are at least in part publicly funded, those rebate totals should be public record.
Another good test would be to show up and request the same discounts they give to their best private payer organization. Fat chance, they subsidize that with "usual and customary charges" for the cash customer.
Defeat this money grab if we can.
Posted by: angry in kent on April 21, 2006 05:29 PMI can get to Enumclaw in 5 minutes, Auburn in 20 and to get to VMC would take at least 45.
Why the hell do they think they're entitled to my tax OR insurance payments for anything when I will never use their services?
No no no!!!
Posted by: MSRedneck on April 21, 2006 06:25 PMIn addition, this tax would support routine medical treatment for illegal aliens - that's treasonous. Illegal aliens should only be treated in emergency situations or otherwise only if they pay the amount an uninsured person must pay and if they can't handle - they need to go back to where they came from and see a doctor.
Posted by: KS on April 21, 2006 10:21 PMThe fact that Valley treats illegal aliens, the indigent or poor has nothing at all to do with this vote. They are federally mandated to provide basic emergency services for these people.
Now let's address Enumclaw. While the Enumclaw hospital is a fine facility, it has 25 hospital beds and does not provide the range of services that Valley Medical does. If you need a neurosurgeon, an oncologist, a urologist, an endocrinologist, plastic surgery, psychiatry, and a lot of other types of specialists, you are not going to Enumclaw hospital. So you are either driving to Valley Medical, or someplace else. I know a little bit about what some of these specialists cost, and I assure you they do not come cheap. So while it's nice to say you would never use Valley Medical for anything, chances are your situation is not the same as many of your neighbors.
This is not "greedy Valley Medical" looking for a larger tax base. It's about people paying for access to quality healthcare who are actually utilizing those services.
Posted by: Palouse on April 22, 2006 10:31 AMValley charges market rate for medical procedures. If they wish to charge more, let them raise their rates. I do not subscribe to the "socialized medicine" model, and I do not want any provider to receive a subsidy which will create a monopoly provider. No other provider will attempt to compete with a subsidized competitor.
Since Valley bought the local clinic there has been a private doctor open an office across the street which is profitable. Snoqualmie Hospital opened a four doctor clinic. They are also investigating a much larger facility for which they've already identified a location. They have requested no subsidy. If there's a problem, it's not the market.
Valley has a high profile location in the middle of a high growth community. People who move here come from the Eastside and Seattle. They're looking for new places to shop and go for services. Maple Valley has the highest median income in the South County area with the lowest uninsured rate.
It's possible Maple Valley Clinic is unprofitable under those circumstances. Let them open their books to substantiate the claim. I don't think they are interested...
It's possible that Valley is actually the second coming of Mother Teresa. Since they've been caught in so many lies and misstatements the last few weeks they have no credibility. That was a strategy call they made which backfired.
Posted by: South County on April 22, 2006 01:09 PMThe expansion of the taxing district is not just about the Maple Valley clinic. I assure you that there are many patients in the area being proposed to be annexed that use Valley services at the Medical Center. And it is people living in Kent and Renton who are subsidizing those people.
If people want access to top quality specialists in South King County, without having to go to Swedish for these special services, taxing districts are necessary. If you don't like the way Valley has handled this election, then just vote no to spite them, but I don't believe it's in the community's interest to do so. The additional revenue the hospital receives from the taxing district can improve the quality of care and provide more access to specialists, both at the clinics and at the Medical Center. This adds value to the community, your home and the quality of life in this area.
Posted by: Palouse on April 22, 2006 06:45 PMWe patronize VGH occasionally for after hours emergencies (boys don't ya know). As a private pay customer, I pay through the nose for medical care at VGH...several times what our regular medical facility charges.
Posted by: dl on April 22, 2006 11:10 PMTwo more points:
The opponents of Prop 1 were not the first to use the "S" (selfish) word. That honor goes to the California campaign consultant, who suggested that requiring Valley to compete on a level playing field was somehow unreasonable.
The debate and position of Valley has changed from day 1. They have not made the case for their subsidy to this point, pleas of "fairness" notwithstanding. Other voter's yea vote does not obligate us in any way; Valley has to make the case to us. Open your books, and make the case that you need the money. The secrecy and duplicitousness shown to date indicates they have concluded that's not a winning strategy for them...my sense is that Valley is surprised we're not ignorant rubes out here.
I'm a local person who lives in Maple Valley. I'm involved in the community and I spend a lot of my time doing volunteer work with various organizations. After this initiative is passed or failed I'll still be here. That's my involvement and motivation.
Palouse, why don't you explain why you know so much about Valley's finances, and why you advocate for passage? Are you part of the stealth campaign?
Posted by: South County on April 23, 2006 08:36 AMWhile I lived there our primary care physicians were all based at Multi-Care. My wife and I both had day surgury procedures there, and my son had a couple of trips to their urgent care center for stitches.
VMC opened one of their clinics there while Multi-Care was really the only game in town. They started by having a very high profile and nice signage and some specialists on staff. After they failed to make a dent in market share, the specialists dissapeared, and the services offered declined. When having a knee checked for some damage, my Multi-Care physician sent me to an ortho surgeon who works out of the VMC clinic. While the doctor was superb and one of the best I've dealt with, the whole experience left me cold. I had to change into cotton shorts upstairs, go through the building half-dressed to sit in another waiting room for xrays, wait for them to develop then hand carry my xrays back to the doctor upstairs. Being asked to wander around the facility and wait half dressed in a room full of people was a humiliating experience I'm not likely to repeat. Plus they didn't have the right diagnostic gear which required a trip to Tukwila, a week of time for results and another trip to the clinic. All while I could barely walk.
They started with lots of fanfare and a nice facility, it only took a year before their level of service turned to crap and the building seems half empty. No wonder the clinics lose money.
They had no business opening the Covington facility when they did, before any of the growth occured in Covington. Multi-Care had more than enough capacity for the less than 12K population. When it was built.
So Palouse, frankly I don't care, having used their services, I'll vote with my feet and my wallet. NO!
Posted by: MSRedneck on April 24, 2006 06:05 AMWe're being asked to subsidize something above what the market requires to provide this care. The fact that we have another provider willing to do so with no subsidy underlines that.
You say that the subsidy is "above what the market requires". Your basis for this is a 4 doctor Snoqualmie clinic and a yet to be funded or built facility with an unknown number of beds and an unknown set of specialized services. With all due respect, that is not evidence of anything. Take a look at the range of specialists and services that Valley provides, and I promise you that is not being replicated without public subsidy. Also, I have not compared the tax bases, patients treated, number of Medicare and basic health plan patients between Snoqualmie and Renton/Kent, but I would venture to say they are quite different. So the comparison is not a valid one.
MSRedneck, the reason that many specialist have disappeared from the outlying clinics is because they really do lose money, and there are not enough public funds to keep those quality people closer to their patients. If this taxing district is not passed, don't expect any more specialists in outlying clinics, and some might close (which would be fine with many here I would guess). Multi-care is another fine facility for cuts and scrapes and other basic services, but again if you need specialists you are driving somewhere. And then you are driving to that same somewhere when you need followup services, because those specialists won't be in those clinics.
Posted by: Palouse on April 24, 2006 07:51 AMHow many "special" elections has your precinct endured the past year or two? In the past 14 months or so, Maple Valley has had 4...5...more? This is not only expensive, how secure is the counting and ballot situation? Consider KC's dismal track record, then consider elections with much small media attention and staff...inquiring minds want to know...
Posted by: dl on April 24, 2006 08:04 AMIn all-mail balloting due April 26, King County Public Hospital District 1 is asking voters to increase their support for Valley Medical Center by raising the hospital tax from 9 cents per $1,000 of assessed value to 59 cents per $1,000. For the owner of a $300,000 house, passage would mean an increase from $27 to $177 a year.
King County has two other public-hospital districts. Kirkland-based District 2 (Evergreen Hospital Medical Center) already levies 33 cents for operating expenses, and collects an additional 26 cents per $1,000 to pay off bonds sold for a building project -- a 59-cent total. King County Hospital District 4 (Snoqualmie) levies 49 cents per $1,000 for services, but also collects 12 cents for a bond issue -- a 61-cent total.
"...subsidizing those people who utilize Valley services from MV and other outlying areas." Are you talking about me? While living in an "outlying area" of already heavy taxes, we have had three children born at Valley and a couple of after hours emergencies (stitches). Not insured, we paid cash for each visit...alot of it, because Valley charges about twice what other facilities charge. My medical care has not cost you a cent, it's more likely that I am subsidizing your medical care.
If those detached clinics in outlying areas are operating a loss, close them. My one experience at MV included a lecturing, pompus, and arrogant young doctor with questionable medical skills.
Your frustration regarding taxes should be directed where it belongs, with those who waste our tax dollars...yours and mine.
Posted by: dl on April 24, 2006 11:21 AMAnd it's fine to use your personal experience as support for a vote. I have done that myself on occasion. But keep in mind, your situation is not reflective of everyone in your area, or in the proposed taxing district. Plenty of people in your area use Valley services and specialists. People in the taxing district are paying for their access to those resources, and they don't pay a cent (currently) for that access outside of the actual cost of services, which everyone pays for through insurance or other means. Indeed, the specialists which delivered your children at Valley would not be there if the taxing district did not exist.
As for the clinics, I am closer to the Maple Valley clinic than to the hospital, and would rather go there for followup services if I could. So I think the clinic adds value to the community and makes it a better place to live, your personal experience notwithstanding. That is a worthy investment of tax dollars in my opinion.
Posted by: Palouse on April 24, 2006 11:50 AMI can take what I see at face value. Lake Wilderness Medical Clinic opened less than a year ago; I attended the open house. They are a four doctor clinic. They want to build a bigger facility; 15,000 SF has been named. They have asked for no subsidy.
I suspect that if anything they expect their Maple Valley facility to subsidize their hospital.
Nobody knows what Valley might offer in some possible facility they may build at some point.
If Snoqualmie did ask for a subsidy, I know they would come and talk to the community about it, instead of asking their lawyers what the law required them to say. I know that because I see the hospital administrator all the time. He and his staff have done several presentations at the local Rotary. If there's a local community fund raiser, they are there. We had a fundraiser breakfast for a local organization in April. They had a table.
You know, I've never seen someone from Valley there.
So, if Snoqualmie did request that, they would get a fair hearing and have a good shot at approval. Contrast that with the reception Valley Medical reps received at the public hearing two weeks ago.
Posted by: South County on April 24, 2006 05:45 PMI don't know if this was your intent, but you're not making a very good impression. That describes the last election Valley held, not this one. This upcoming election will annex new areas into the district, at the existing tax rate, which is .59 per $1,000. You may want to check the date on that article.
Let Valley make the case. The more I follow the campaign the angrier I get. Today's King County Journal had a front page story about the issue. Spokesman for Valley were contradicted time and again. I can't believe they think "Our lawyer told us we didn't have to," is a defense.
Posted by: South County on April 24, 2006 06:00 PMIf outlying communities want clinics with specialists close to them, they need to be part of the taxing district. Otherwise, those of us who are already paying these taxes are subsidizing those clinics. Question for you, are any of the clinics either existing or proposed for Snoqualmie outside of their taxing district? It's possible that they are, I don't know. I would rather see those clinics continue to exist than to just write them off by saying "fine, close them then".
Posted by: Palouse on April 25, 2006 09:13 AM2) As of right now, there's a limit to the number of elections that can be held in one year and that number is six. Those dates are determined during the fall of the previous year.
3) As for the idea that there are "too many" -- well, ain't democracy wonderful?
Posted by: Guy4Democracy on May 12, 2006 11:43 AM