I think it will provide cannon fodder for the "Inova is evil, therefore we need to put another hospital in the Ashburn Planning Area" group, which does little to address the Loudoun service planning issue.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wait a minute!!! Inova's been telling us for years competition will drive up prices!!!!
Oh yeah...another of their ridiculous lies exposed.

Next thing they'll say is they're ready and willing to build a hospital on Rte 50 now to put false hopes in all their supporters there.
This is also another of their current lies.
They told the TRUTH to the Board of Supervisors a few years ago....RTE 50 won't be able to support a hospital for 10-15 more years.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff, did you read the article in today's Metro? It appears PW approached Inova, because they need capital to expand to serve their own county's growth. That sounds a little different than "evil big monopoly tries to swallow local community hospital (therefore put second Loudoun hospital in same planning area with existing one)".

In addition, did you read the long letter in last week's L2day? HCA will build Stone Spring Medical Center someday (AFTER they go to Ashburn), and what is that but a carrot dangled for the rest of the county to hope they'll wait forever?

Cliff, the HCA supporters can't have it both ways, on a LOT of fronts.

The bogus no-growthers whined and wailed about representatives doing land use deals for campaign contributors, but think its just fine when the VLF board does it for HCA. They also have had much to say about evil greedy national developers, and good local developers, yet champion the largest private healthcare entity on earth over the local one--Inova has what, five hospitals?

Putting a second hospital in Ashburn won't address the "50% argument" either. You can't hold the position that a Broadlands hospital will ensure everyone in Loudoun healthcare shops in Loudoun, and then turn around and say the only place to put one is where there's already service. If you really want to serve the ones who don't go in-county now, you have to put the services where they are accessible to more people.

If HCA has no intention of checking the other box and building the COPN they've been sitting on for years, then they ought to do one easy thing to eliminate much of the argument: Take "Regional" out of the project's name.

Then we're being honest.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, before we get to close to Roswell, NM, can we address some of the new information released by the Federal Government associated with this issue.
.
The further we get away from Loudoun politics the closer we get to facts. So let's deal with the new information rather than railing the conversation over to the same ole rhetoric. Here are a few major issues brought out in the FTC ruling:
.
The administrative complaint charges that the proposed acquisition would violate the federal antitrust laws by reducing competition.
.
The complaint further charges that as a result of the merger consumers in Northern Virginia will pay higher prices and lose the benefits of non-price competition.
.
According to the FTC, the acquisition...would eliminate the significant, existing price and non-price competition...
.
“There is no question that Northern Virginia residents have benefited from the robust competition between Inova and Prince William Hospital through better services and lower prices,” said Jeffrey Schmidt, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition.
.
Inova, a non-profit corporation based in Falls Church, Virginia, is by far the largest hospital system in Northern Virginia. It owns five hospitals in the region, which together have nearly 1,900 licensed beds.
.
After the merger, Inova would control approximately 73 percent of the licensed beds in Northern Virginia and six separate hospitals.
.
Competition between hospitals is vital in constraining health care costs to consumers and ensuring high-quality services.
.
..because of the <current> close competition between Inova and PWHS, ... health plans <insurance companies> are able to negotiate to keep health care prices down, most significantly at PWHS...
.
The merger would eliminate...competitive constraint and potential alternative for health plans, leading to significant price increases at PWHS and incremental price increases at Inova.
.
The complaint alleges that these price increases would lead to higher health care costs for employers, health plan enrollees, and consumers
.
Of course, as Barbara certainly we point out, this is not a final ruling, but boy would I like to be arguing the Commonwealth of VA point of view on this one.
.
Barbara, I challenge you to provide something new, and related to this issue that refutes the current findings and opinion of the FTC Commission.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One other major point, the FTC press release states that PWHS represents 180 licensed beds, where as Inova represents 1900 licensed beds.
.
PWHS is real close to the size of the proposed BRMC. It is not a stretch to compare the effects of a monopoly in PW as it is to compare the effects of a monopoly in Loudoun.
.
In fact, you could replace PWHS with BRMC within the Federal Government's press release and it would ring with truth.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No thanks, Glenn. See my first comment re cannon-fodder.

And unfortunately for the Group B paeons of Loudoun, local politics IS state and national too.

That's why HCA tapped a retired state insider to get them their second COPN.

That's why we have a new Heritage Preservation Area that will give beaucoup federal dollars to a small group of Loudoun well-connected each year to make sure Route 15 stays a private driveway, whether people die on it or not.

That's why they just broke ground on a class A porker of an experiment (also federally funded) on Route 50 to make sure it stays a private driveway as well.

If this were really about a "good" company engaging in healthy competition with a "bad" company, there would already be a second hospital open in better proximity for the underserved.

But it is not about providing regional service, and there aren't any people that matter on the two private driveways that transsect the county if you're going to buy the contradictory argument about duplicate placement catching the other 50%.

So why not take "Regional" out of the name?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The time has come for these two hospital corporations to work this out. What was that book about all you really need to know in life you learned in kindergarten? Inova just got told by the FTC and Attorney General's office that they have to be willing to share.

Basically, it looks to me like HCA should build their hospital in Ashburn, and Inova should get the one 10 years down the line on Rt 50. This serves the interest of the people of Loudoun, saves probably millions in attorneys fees, gets Belmont Rd $11 million in road improvements, and provides choice, competition, more quality doctors, and state of the art emergency rooms.

If Inova agreed to that, I wonder if they would be able to get their PW deal down the road. Sometimes you have to give a little to get a lot.

This argument needs to be over. It's become petty. I think Inova is hurting themselves pr wise. And the FTC and Attorney General's office just laid down the hammer.

Posted by PerfectTiming (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And PW approached Inova. Who approached the FTC?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Timing, we are just at the beginning of the land use process for this VLF campaign contributor.

The application may be accepted next week and start first referral.

This article is a blip on the road of Loudoun political ugly.

And speaking of Feds, where are those indictments that the HCA/VLF money helped pay for campaign literature promoting?

Anyone heard anything yet about the Feds and those definite indictments of representatives doing land use deals for campaign contributors?

Yep, invoking the Fed is a definitive end to any discussion in Loudoun!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, since you don't want to deal with the facts that will be presented in the pending Federal Court proceedings, then I guess it's very clear that your comments are to be relegated to the op ed page.
.
p.s. is it your opinion that the UN will soon be taking a commanding position on Loudoun County politics? :)

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good question Barbara, the Press Release references that the Commonwealth of Virginia via the AG office is bring the complaint.
.
"The action in federal district court will be brought jointly with the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia."
.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, it also references that it is an administrative complaint.

Again you are funny with the word "fact". I guess we could all be on the op-ed pages, couldn't we? What about the fact that HCA could have been open by now if they chose to?

And how about the famous "facts" of the now-apparently-non-existent federal proceedings against non-VLF candidates who did land use votes for campaign contributors?

The UN is already in Loudoun government. What do you think being an official "sustainable community" means?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, you are very loose with your opinion of what a fact is. You have already been refuted when it comes to your "opinion" that a hospital could already be open if HCA chose to.
.
Again, I am not going to help you compose your conspiracy theories associated with the VLF stuff, you should just cut and paste your past prose associated with the PEC. Albeit unexciting, but it will help you with your book deadline.
.
Of course it's an administrative complaint. That is what these things are called before they go to Federal Court. That's also why they appoint an "Administrative Law Judge" to hear the case.
.
Lots of good info at:
.
http://ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9326/index.sht...
.
The link provides official Government information and documents associated with the pending Federal Court hearing, entitled, Docket No. 9326: In the Matter of Inova Health Systems Foundation, a corporation, and Prince William Health System, Inc., a corporation.
.
This ain't no trivial "administrative" issue.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, it looks like you want it both ways again (always!).

Thanks for introducing your conspiracy theories back into a supposedly fact-based discussion.

It is a fact that I am not writing a book. I wouldn't lose any sleep over that one.

Administrative issues are often quite different from legislative or criminal ones. Try and explain that to someone clueless about land use when they want to stop a by right approval.

(BTW, does posting this link mean you've read it?)

Now, back to facts:

What does this have to do with HCA's land use application in Loudoun?

What does it have to do with the fact that a COPN has been granted extensions more than once when it didn't have basic land use, and will need another extension to try to get that land use in contravention of the Comprehensive Plan, from people who campaigned against doing land use deals for campaign contributors?

If the object is to bring healthcare choices to the 50% who go outside the county for care, to quote a lot of expensive ads, why build it where there are already healthcare choices from the same large company?

As for your statement that you have refuted the fact that a simple box on a form they've already filed multiple times could maybe have had that second hospital open by now, that is right up there with Al Gore saying that "debate" on human-caused global warming is over, because he and his friends have "achieved consensus" on what their computer models say.

Science don't work that way.

And neither does it work for you to declare something is true because you said the word "fact" several times during a screed full of conspiracy musings.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love these hospital threads. I think we need to get Barbara to move to "Dulles north" so she can live closer to the Broadlands hospital site. B/c that really is the issue isn't it? She just wants whatever hospital that is to be built to be close to her (kind of the opposite of the NIMBYS in the Broadlands who oppose the hospital).
.
Only in Loudoun do people protest hospitals and schools.

Posted by qazwsxedcrfv (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

qazwsxedcrfv, think so if you like. I don't think it is a Broadlands NIMBY issue so much as it is the way the thing has been handled from the start: as an insider done-deal between Mr. York and the promoters.

Remember, this is the county where broadband infrastructure can be voted down because cell towers look ugly to some people in less dense areas. That to me is a far more ephemeral claim than people who did their due diligence in a suburb advertised as "the natural way to live" suddenly ending up next to a (supposedly regional) major service.

I am not the only person in the 500+ square miles of the county that would like to see a more accessible location.

If HCA really wants to catch a good chunk of the 50% they claim to be building for, then they ought to go outside the area where there is already competition. Broadlands is basically between two hospitals as it is: Loudoun up a choice of roads to the north, and Reston nearly equidistant to the east on the Greenway.

Will a choice of two providers at three locations be enough for the Ashburn proponents of the project?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara-
First, who approached who is not germane to the issue. The issue is that competition creates lower prices, and Inova is getting too much of a monopoly in Northern Virginia.
Inova's been telling us competition raises prices. Now their lie is exposed.

Second, HCA is at least being honest with the public. They will not open their RTE 50 medical center until after BRMC. Why? Because they know, just like Inova knows and has publically stated, "THE RTE 50 CORRIDOR CANNOT SUPPORT A HOSPITAL FOR 10-15 YEARS."
Everyone wants to conveniently ignore this FACT. THe route 50 hospital supporters feel it is better that the county do without a second hospital NOW if it means one on RTE 50 MIGHT be built a few years sooner. What a self-centered viewpoint that threatens the availability of healthcare for ALL of the county.

Keep spouting your "check the box" issue about the COPN. As you are well aware, "Checking the box" opens up the entire COPN for review...something Inova desparately wants.

Lastly, I'm still waiting for an answer about what road proffers Inova offered up with their RTE 50 proposal. Since I know you have read my question, know the answer and are refusing to give it, I will answer the question for you....They've offered up NOTHING.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi Lee.

Cliff: As HSANV has stated, they feel neither hospital is needed, because the Broadlands location serves the same cachement area as existing facilities, and they have doubts about the population as well.

There is already competition in your neighborhood, and 50% still go elsewhere? Why is that an issue for the multiple ads? Seriously, get REALLY honest and take "Regional" out of the name.

Cliff, there are a variety of reasons for people outside Broadlands or Ashburn Farm to support a different location. Lumping everyone together with your opinion of their reasons (something you don't seem to like when you think someone is doing it to you) is little different than an equally spurious argument that some in Ashburn may be so self-centered that they think it deserves two or three of everything before anyone else gets any.

HCA is not being honest if it had a Board and a Planning Commission (pre-me, remember) that told them they would work with the company to find a more suitable location, and instead they went to court and got several extensions saying their hands were tied. By themselves, maybe. They could have requested a site change and been open by now. That never prevented them from getting their extensions, and neither would it have done so to select a more suitable site, because they should have had their land use after the FIRST extension.

It is either about serving the people who are currently unserved, or about money. Guess which one seems to win in the scenario where there are two HCA providers triangulated with Inova around the same service area?

As for road improvements, I did answer you: they are providing a big whack of the land for the interchange, and reconfiguring the local network to provide access while not running traffic through the existing neighbors property. (Yes, there are some existing neighbors to the Route 50 site too).

When will anyone answer the question about how building from Broadlands Blvd to Briar Woods (including the overlap in existing proffers from Broadlands Blvd to Truro Parish? Still not answered.) will improve access for anyone south or west of Brambleton? It improves mobility in your area, but does nothing for healthcare access for most other people.

Cliff, we shall continue to disagree. I'll continue to discuss it with you sans personal attack, and hope you can keep your personal passion for the project in check to do the same. I don't like mentally lumping you in with York's Posse boys and Glenn, but it isn't hard to make the association when you get revved up on the issue.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look in the mirror, if there is one in your house. As Snow was observed to be "rational-on-any-subject-except-developers"...you show your deep-seated rage at the mere mention of Scott York...or PEC. You need help.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, I don't recall saying PEC once in this thread. In addition, I like Scott York personally, I just don't agree with him on a lot of things. Anyone who likes baked goods as much as he does is someone you can meet at least halway on some subjects!

He should definitely recuse on this application. If only to be consistent with his campaign literature, right?

As for rage, you are the poster child there. As I see you are still raging, along with other committee members under their aliases, against fellow committee members on the tc blog.

Your new LCRC, with an open hand to all in a big tent, as long as everyone who wants to participate marches in lockstep with the ones who trashed the party so they could reform it in their own image.

Rage on, honcho.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 12:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb-
My comment about why people on Rte 50 support Rte 50 vs. BRMC came from your HOA President. She said "We do not support BRMC because if it's built it will be that much longer before one gets built down here."
.
The proffer to widen Belmont Ridge Rd from Truro Parish to Briar Woods was to improve access to the hospital from the south...something that was requested by the Planning Commission.
And I gave a detailed explanation to your question about the road proffer, which you acknowledged. I'll quickly review: there is no duplicate proffer.
Last time around, the money for Broadlands Blvd to Truro Parish was thought to be in place without BRMC. BRMC proferred Truro Parish to Brambleton to complete that stretch.
As it stands now, only Greenway to Broadlands Blvd is funded, so there is still some missing dollars to finish Broadlands Blvd to Truro Parish.
.
Sorry, I missed your response about Inova's road proffer, but I was essentially correct...they've done the minimum possible to get approved. So much for THEIR committment to trying to solve any transportation problems.
.
BRMC will serve everyone, including the Rte 50 corridor. Yes, it's a few miles further drive than a Rte 50 location for a hospital, but I bet it's a shorter, easier drive than going to Fair Oaks.
.
Lastly, no personal attack was intended. I reread my post. "Spouting" was a poor choice of words and I did not intend it to be perceived as an attack on you. Sorry!
I guess HCA is comfortable with their chosen site and do not want to jeopardize it's approval by reopening the COPN. Seems logical to me. I will reiterate a point that you do not address:
Why would HCA or INOVA build a hospital on RTE 50 now if both company's have clearly stated that it is not viable for 10-15 years??? These are their words, not mine.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Location, Location, Location. Route 50 is the place for this facility. It is consistent with the County's own plan. Let HCA and Inova work it out or fight it out from there.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff, I thought the Broadlands Blvd to Truro segment is a portion of the Van Metre obligation? I guess we'll see it all spelled out as review begins soon.

BRMC CAN serve everyone, who can get there. I think it is silly to promote it as serving everyone who goes outside the county now, because little of that will change. Those who prefer to go to an HCA facility can go a little farther down the Greenway right now if that's where they feel they have to. Getting to, and paying for the Greenway is another story and will stay one.

Looking at the latest renewal, I'm wondering how much it has to do with the fact that these are replacement beds--if HCA bought and closed facilities to move beds within the service area, then I guess technically the region is at a service deficit right now because approved (and previously functional) beds are currently offline with this whole fiasco. The existing COPN isn't for new beds, which could seem to bolster the opinion of some that no new ones are currently needed. Restoring the existing ones apparently is!

Growth has occurred all over the county Cliff. Broadlands-is-a-few-minutes-closer isn't much of an argument for people who can't get there without a hassle in the first place.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb-
Van Metre has a 2-lane proffer from Broadlands Blvd to Truro Parish.
.
Yes, the county population has grown and we are finally on the verge of a second hospital.
.
You kind of made my point. HCA had a difficult time getting REPLACEMENT beds approved in Loudoun. How difficult do you think it would be to get NEW beds added?
If BRMC is not approved, it may be a long, long time before loudoun gets another hospital.....a situation Inova would dearly love.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff, I have to laugh: precisely my point about not putting them right next to the other hospital, since any beds are allocated by the large regional planning area of which our local jurisdiction is only one part.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)