Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Obama, Hawaii, and Dodgy Certificates ( The evidence is even worse than you might think)
National Review ^ | 8/7/2009 | Stephen Spruiell

Posted on 08/07/2009 11:01:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Pres. Barack Obama has argued that “one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.” But if you want to know how state enterprises really feel about competition, take a look at Obama’s home state of Hawaii.

On the island of Maui, there is only one acute-care hospital, the state-run Maui Memorial Medical Center. For years, residents of Maui have complained that the hospital does not meet their needs — too few beds, not enough specialists, and long waits in the emergency room. State bureaucrats finally cleared the way earlier this year for a small private hospital to be built, but only after scuttling plans to build a larger, more accommodating private hospital. A larger hospital, they said, would have an adverse impact on “the existing health-care system.” In other words, it would compete too effectively with what is now a state-run monopoly.

To block the construction of the private hospital, which its backers dubbed the Malulani project, the Hawaii State Health Planning and Development Agency (SHPDA) simply denied its application for a Certificate of Need (CON). In Hawaii, private companies must petition the state if they want to build a new hospital. Certificate of Need laws proliferated during the regulatory heyday of the 1960s, and the federal government started requiring states to adopt them in the 1970s. The federal requirement was repealed in 1987, and a number of states followed suit by dropping these anti-competitive laws. But many states, including Hawaii, still have them.

Under the guise of controlling health-care costs (sound familiar?), Certificate of Need laws allow established market players to game the system by convincing regulators that competition would force them to charge more or to cut politically popular but money-losing services such as substance-abuse counseling. This CON job is even easier to pull when the established market player is a state-run hospital, such as Maui Memorial.

In denying Malulani’s CON application, the SHPDA relied almost entirely on the testimony of interested parties, primarily officials from Maui Memorial who claimed that the new hospital would hurt their bottom line. “The financial impact . . . of Malulani would be severe,” one Maui Memorial official testified. “Total estimated net revenue loss in Maluiani’s third year of operation is estimated to be $54,913,000 . . . Revenue losses of this magnitude would limit any safety-net programs [Maui Memorial] could provide.”

Coming from a private hospital, this sob story might or might not convince a sympathetic regulator to protect it from competition. Coming from a state-run hospital, it is simple extortion. Taxpayers are on the hook for any holes in Maui Memorial’s operating budget, so the hospital’s administrators can scare their political overseers with a big number or threaten to make unpopular service cuts to get their way.

The involvement of the state also allows other interest groups to exert control over the process. The Hawaii Government Employees Association, the union that represents Maui Memorial employees, feared the Malulani project and pressured policymakers to oppose it. Ronald Kwon, a Maui-born internist who led the Malulani project, says, “The largest employer in Hawaii is the state government, and the largest union is the HGEA, and when they don’t want something to happen, they can be very effective at blocking it.”

In addition to Maui Memorial administrators and employees, a consortium of interests on the neighboring island of Oahu, the seat of state government, got in on the act. Jan Shields, a nurse who worked at Maui Memorial and later became an advocate for Malulani, explains why: “Maui is the money island,” she says. “The rich get care, because they hop on a plane and fly over to Oahu and go to one of the private hospitals. But the middle class who can’t afford to fly over, and certainly the poor, are stuck with the government hospital.”

Shields points out that the Oahu panels involved in the Certificate of Need review process sank Malulani for the simple reason that a large number of Maui patients are flown to Oahu for care each year — the rich at their leisure and the middle class and poor in emergencies. For instance, Maui Memorial does not have a neonatal intensive-care unit. It can only try to stabilize premature or sick newborns until the cavalry arrives. “So if you have a sick baby,” Shields says, “say it’s a preemie and it’s born at Maui Memorial, the babies just get poor care until the transport team can come from Oahu, pick them up, and bring them back. And, as a result, our babies don’t do as well.”

The human costs of substandard care are bad enough, but the state’s decision to block the Malulani project has had budgetary consequences, too. Like most states, Hawaii is currently facing a budget crunch, and Linda Lingle, the Republican governor who supported Malulani, is looking for ways to cut costs. Maui Memorial in particular has been a source of budgetary headaches, because overcrowding has forced it to fill expensive acute-care beds with long-term patients. In order to save money in the long run, the state now has to spend $5 million to add long-term beds at another state facility. Three years ago, private investors were offering to add hospital beds on Maui at no cost to the state through the Malulani project, and, had the state taken them up on it, the Malulani Health and Medical Center would probably be ready to serve the island today — it was scheduled to open its doors last January.

“We had everything in place,” says Kwon, who left Hawaii for Boston in frustration. “[The SHPDA] said we would have an adverse impact on the existing provider, but my argument is that the impact would have been more beneficial than adverse, because it would have been forced to become a better place. A rising tide lifts all boats, and I really think that’s what would have happened.”

And therein lies the reason that the Malulani project went down to defeat: State-run enterprises do not want anyone to force them to be better. They would rather manipulate the reins of power to maintain the status quo. In discussing President Obama’s health-care agenda, Rep. Barney Frank recently went off-message and told a left-wing activist, “I think the best way we’re going to get single-payer, the only way, is to have a public option demonstrate its strength and its power.” Representative Frank probably didn’t mean the strength and power of state-run enterprises to steamroll their competitors, but the Malulani project demonstrates why that is a strength and power we should fear and fight.

— Stephen Spruiell is an NRO staff reporter.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; hawaii; obama

1 posted on 08/07/2009 11:01:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Nuts; thought it was about the BC. Thought NR was getting on board.


2 posted on 08/07/2009 11:09:40 AM PDT by Genoa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImaTexan

Ping


3 posted on 08/07/2009 11:11:40 AM PDT by bjcintennessee (Don't Sweat the Small Stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There are a lot of similarities here with government run schools. No competition. The rich can send their kids to better schools. No true reform, ever.


4 posted on 08/07/2009 11:13:13 AM PDT by ChocChipCookie (Survival is a Mom's Job! Check out my blog: www.thesurvivalmom.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I worked directly with the Certificate of Need (CON) programs in more than a dozen states including Hawaii obtaining CON approvals for building nursing care beds. The process was driven by a federal law that had as a stated goal of reducing the number of hospital beds to no more than 4 beds per every thousand population and engaged in a bureaucratic jihad against the “proliferation” of new health care technologies like CT scans. Had the federal health planning program met its goals we would be currently faced with a severe shortage of hospital beds and new life saving technologies would be limited to only a few medical centers in the country.


5 posted on 08/07/2009 11:18:52 AM PDT by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
Under the guise of controlling health-care costs (sound familiar?), Certificate of Need laws allow established market players to game the system by convincing regulators that competition would force them to charge more or to cut politically popular but money-losing services such as substance-abuse counseling.

Treating druggies and winos is so expensive that companies like ours are forced to include substance abuse coverage in any policies we provide to our employees even though we require drug testing as a condition for hire and for keeping the job!

6 posted on 08/07/2009 12:43:32 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or, are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Oh, a different kind of certificate :)


7 posted on 08/07/2009 1:03:52 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Why Does Obama Want Health Care in 4 Weeks When it Took Him 6 Months to Pick a Dog?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Yikes!!

Remind me not to get sick in Hawaii!

8 posted on 08/07/2009 1:55:05 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
Nuts; thought it was about the BC. Thought NR was getting on board.

Sounds like their flirting with it.

9 posted on 08/07/2009 3:10:10 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (The revolution IS being televised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson