This is great. Now let's see which supervisors "Refuse" to reconsider the vote. Only supervisors with hidden agendas would "Refuse" to consider additional "Expert Advice" from the FTC. Only those who fear the "Facts" would say no to this. From yesterday's article regarding the terrible crash on Loudoun County Parkway, "The driver was taken to Inova Fairfax Hospital and the extent of his injuries was not immediately known." Who among you does not believe that Loudoun County medical services are seriously lacking? Who actually believes that competition would not bring about new and innovative services? Who believes that additional medical services are not needed TODAY? Lets see what each of the supervisors really believe. Thank you supervisor Miller.

Posted by salm624 (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who cares what some bureaucrat in Washington thinks about a land use application in Loudoun County. The Supervisors made the correct decision. So when the next mega-residential development proposal comes down the line and some bureaucrat in DC thinks it is a good idea the BOS should abdicate their responsibility to good planning? Let's move on.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LoudounModerate, I guess it is usually helpful to exaggerate when attempting to make a point, "the BOS should abdicate their responsibility to good planning", but not here. I don't see any call for a change in the original vote. I see a call to be responsible and to seek information that was not available at the time the decision was made. The report may contain absolutely nothing new. It may contain negative information regarding the new Hospital or it might show some good reasons for moving ahead with the project. I am a truth seeker. I don't care which way the report goes. All I care is that the elected officials use good judgment and have access to all available information. That is all that Supervisor Miller asked for and no more. By the way, I am paying for that Washington Bureaucrat and I care what he/she has to say. Your comment is demeaning to all public servants in that it assumes that they cannot do a good job. Shameful...

Posted by salm624 (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The FTC is a Red Herring, dreamed up by HCA lawyers as a last ditch effort. The FTC has absolutely ZERO role in determining land use issues in Loudoun County, and I am amazed that people who claim to support the free market and competition want to allow the Federal Government to dictate where local governments should approve projects.

What HCA doesn't want you to know is that if they built a hospital on route 50, they would STILL be competing on an even playing field for all of those patients in Ashburn and Leesburg, and would claim ALL patients along the 50 corridor. They already compete with Loudoun Hospital for patients in Sterling.

HCA either needs to go to Route 50 or go away.

Posted by con5ab (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Since that individual spent absolutely no time reviewing the public testimony for and or against this application it is outrageous to think that their opinion holds any weight whatsoever with respect to the impact BRMC would have on the community and the whole host of planning issues that the BOS reviewed. Just posturing on Miller's part and he knows it -- in fact, we all know it.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

According to testimony provided by the FTC and the AG of Virginia in the FTC v Inova/Prince William County Hospital administrative complaint, Inova dominates healthcare in this region with 67% of the beds. Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington is the closest second with 11%. The remaining four regional hospitals have single digit market shares.
.
There is zero chance Inova builds the next hospital in this region. The FTC will stop it from happening.
.
Reality is Loudoun County is going to be dealing with market dominance by Inova for a very long time. For the sake of healthcare for Loudoun County citizens we need to hear what the FTC has to say. This isn't necessarily about HCA this is about the future. Please BOS, delay the vote to give the FTC time to present their report. This is a vote for information and not a vote for HCA. Information about fair trade and competition. Who can vote against that?

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The FTC is not a "red herring," please do some background checking before leaping to such a spurious conclusion. The FTC does have a mandate to protect the interests of the consumer, and it has been observing Inova's practices for years. Most people accept the idea that competition produces benefits for the consumer. Since the FTC has been monitoring Inova as potentially having a monopoly on healthcare services in Northern Virginia, then the BOS should do the responsible thing and listen to what they have to say. I'm sorry this does not please the NIMBYS/Route 50 people -- and those whose allegiance is not based on public need but to Inova -- but -- the rest of us who have been at the mercy of the BOS/special interest groups would appreciate an outside agency stepping in to make sure all the facts are being told.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Posturing," you say? No, the FTC doesn't have time for the fun and games the BOS and Inova apparently have -- it has a job to do, part of which is to look out for the welfare of the consumers -- *all* the consumers, not just special interest groups who somehow personally benefit from decisions the BOS makes.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The term "duplication of services" is perhaps one of the most inappropriately used in this entire situation. Many people refuse to go to Inova Louduon for treatment. They prefer to have a choice, and why shouldn't they? Often times, the ER at Inova Loudoun is unable to efficiently handle the demand --because one hospital cannot adequately meet the needs of such a fast growing county.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know whenever I get a treatment at Inova Loudoun, I immediately run to Reston and get the identical same treatment. It's so great to have duplicate services. I'm twice as healthy you know.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You just have to love this BOS. Talk about Flip flop. Keep going DEMS.

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yocom, are you saying that one area of the county deserves a choice, not only of providers, but of WHICH HCA location to select, before the rest of the county has better access to ANY healthcare?

How does that protect consumers in other areas of this 500+ square mile jurisdiction within the state service planning area?

Duplication of service is pertinent toward the development of higher level service, which is also stipulated as a goal in the comp plan.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Reston Hospital is easily accessible to Asbhurn via the Greenway/Toll Rd (10-15 min trip) and Sterling via FxCo Pkwy. Many LoCo residents are in HCA's service delivery area already due to the location of Reston Hospital.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For now, Momof2, for now -- but what about next year, and the year after that? Do you expect Loudoun's population to remain stagnant, and that Reston Hospital should accomodate Loudoun's growing population? Reston's ER has been known to reach capacity the same as Inova Loudoun's. First things first, the first thing is, HCA has a COPN. The second thing is, HCA has identified Ashburn as having the highest concentration of people. Remember, hospitals are in the business of serving people, but they also *must* remain finacially viable otherwise they cannot operate. Inova participated in the "CPAM" in a way that benefitted Inova -- that's called "conflict of interest."

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This whole situation just makes me SICK!! (No pun intended, REALLY). In my mind, HCA is responsible for this entire debacle. They applied for a special exception a few years ago and they were denied. Instead of looking for a location that would be favorable for them AND the county residents, that would be in compliance with local zoning and the comp plan, they decided to SUE THE COUNTY. THAT is obscene! In addition, they have stayed in the area, doing PR "feel good" deeds to win over the public. We're suppossed to say, Oh, they did all this for our community, so we need to support them. This is just plain wrong.

The board has not spoken against business, jobs, tax revenue, health care or competition. They have upheld the zoning laws that they are required to follow.

HCA - we want a hospital. Do the right thing and find a location that is SUITABLE given the laws and needs of this entire jurisdiction.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yocom, conflict of interest in a land use application has a specific meaning. One that would more likely apply to Mr. Miller's benefit from PAC donations in relation to his vote on this issue.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why not site a hospital near the 606/50 intersection? Why not close to the southern edge of Brambleton? This would be more accessible to the folks in Ashburn and Dulles South, and Sterling.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, what is obscene, is when a BOS bases its decisions on what will best serve themselves, not the people. To add insult to injury, is when a non profit organization like Inova, spents millions of its tax free dollars to create and implement an ugly marketing campaign meant to kill competition. It doesn't get anymore obscene than that.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What is also deplorable, is that because of the BOS's self serving behavior, and because Inova is the bully that it is, the citizens of Loudoun have NOT had additional healthcare choices for the past five years, and in all probibility, will not have another hospital for a good long time. How does that make for a high quality of living in this county?

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank God for the FTC, at least someone is looking out for the people at large, because the Loudoun County BOS has shown it does know how.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yocumclan, I appreciate that you and I disagree on this hospital issue. I understand your points but I think we are looking at this from different angles.

I am wondering about the quality of living in this county. I have lived in LoCo for 16 years: Sterling - Ashburn - Dulles South. Now that the fog of having little kids has lifted, I am starting to see what is going on in this county. I have to say that I am truly concerned about the state of things. Everything is turning into a WAR with accusations flying, threats made, each side unyielding against the other. We really need to look at what is going on here and try to find a way to solve these problems effectively. Otherwise, our quality of life will continue to go down as we add more people but do not have adequate funds for schools, roads, and other necessary services, nor can we get anything approved because someone will always be vehemently against it.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This whole thing will be a procedural nightmare.

I've FOIAed the letter, but by law they don't have to respond until after the business meeting.

I hope Mr. Miller, in the interest of the "transparency" he campaigned on, will make copies available along with the agenda at Tuesday's meeting.

Then, in the meeting, he can raise the motion to deny the BRMC application for reconsideration.

That motion to reconsider must get 5 votes before they can vote again on whether to deny it, which he doesn't want to do.

He wants them to lay it aside for two months.

Is he going to ask to table the motion for two months?

Are they then going to recess and reconvene the same meeting for two months, thereby keeping it open so that the vote can be reconsidered?

After that, they can deal with the previous motion to approve it, which failed 4-5, with Miller voting in the minority.

And he has five votes for all of these things?

What a circus.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't think Roberts Rules will allow them to suspend this vote for 2 months. Any motion to reconsider must be made/heard/decided at the next meeting, otherwise the original action is final, under Robert's Rules.

Doubt Mr. Roberts, the co atty, wants to muck up the waters with sloppy improper procedure, worrying already about being sued by everyone under the sun.

They need to reconsider not only the motion to deny but also the motion to approve. Even if they voted NOT to deny the application, they still need a vote to approve, and to accomplish their goals, they would need to reconsider the vote not to approve, from the last meeting, which will be final at this next meeting.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I got my copy of the letter.

It is from the Acting Director of Policy Planning, begins and concludes with thanking Miller for contacting them, and has more footnotes than text in the middle, which seems to be primarily a history of the organization.

Leesburg Today has a story on the threat of the beds moving to Reston:
http://leesburg2day.com/articles/2009/02...
which seems to be even more involved than this whole BRMC thing has been so far.

Apparently they are going to EITHER
A) take their Reston expansion off of the back burner, APPLY FOR A COPN for it, AND THEN GO THROUGH THE LAND USE APPROVAL FOR IT IN FAIRFAX, OR
B) file an extension for their existing COPN next month with a location change to FAIRFAX, which is apparently MUCH easier than changing location within Loudoun, OR
C) somehow do both, each of which requires LAND USE APPROVAL from Fairfax.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on February 13, 2009 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BarbaraMunsey is exactly correct. The fax from the FTC to Stevens Miller states, "THANK YOU FOR YOUR INQUIRY INTO THE FTC STAFF'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE A COMPETITION ADVOCACY COMMENT TO THE LOUDOUN COUNTY BOARD".

So, Mr. Miller contacted the FTC, not the other way around.

I live in one of the affected neighborhoods and the right decision has been made. This is a zoning issue only. HCA can find another site. Oh wait, they already own one, on Rte. 50. But Ashburn has a much higher percentage of FULLY insured residents who may look for the high dollar elective surgeries that create so much profit (i.e. tummy tucks, breat augmentation, etc.). Follow the money, people, and remember that Inova, by staunch comparison to HCA, is a NON-PROFIT!

Posted by sjoyce4 (anonymous) on February 17, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Get the terminology right - they are a not-for-profit NOT a non-profit. There is a difference.....and they do make megamillions in profits each year - all while paying zero taxes. Yes, please follow the money trail...it will lead you straight to the fat coffers of INOVA.

Posted by gmab (anonymous) on February 17, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GMAB is correct. Once again, Barbara has it wrong. And by the way, the FTC doesn't need an invitation - if they smell a rat, they will head into an investigation without the lovely BOS's approval. I'll make book on that one!

Posted by shilohgirl (anonymous) on February 18, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sholh, I guess you never read the letter?

They will provide comment ONLY if invited, and then ONLY if the agency votes to spend the time and resources on it.

The form of your own comment is perhaps unwittingly correct: if they HAD found any reason to insert themselves in this local land use issue, they would have been here years ago.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 11, 2009 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)