As Good Samaritan Hospital voices concerns to San Jose officials regarding potential delays in the approval of its new facility, a recently unveiled construction timeline suggests that the new hospital may miss the crucial deadline to replace the existing one, which will become noncompliant with state seismic safety standards by 2030. This could significantly increase the pressure on local health services, potentially jeopardizing patient care in the region.
Currently navigating the rezoning approval process, Good Samaritan’s campus is owned by HCA Healthcare.
During a committee meeting on Wednesday, Good Samaritan CEO Patrick Rohan revealed that the hospital is already lagging behind schedule. He implored the City Council to review the company’s rezoning request by November 19, underscoring the urgency of the situation.
“Phase one of the project alone will take six years to complete, which means any deferral threatens the state-mandated seismic timelines and the hospital’s ability to stay open,” Rohan said, amplifying the stakes by stating, “Deferring the decision is not merely a delay. It effectively guarantees the closure of a vital community hospital, leaving San Jose’s residents without access to essential acute care services.”
California law mandates that all older hospitals providing acute beds, essential for patients requiring around-the-clock medical attention, must comply with seismic safety regulations by the end of this decade. Good Samaritan’s representatives have cautioned that failure to retrofit or replace the current hospital could result in its license being revoked by state authorities by the deadline.
To mitigate interruptions in patient care, the healthcare provider has committed to keeping the existing hospital operational while the new facilities—including a parking garage and a central power plant—are constructed.
Rohan has projected the total cost of the construction project to be a staggering $1.2 billion. Since the new hospital is slated to be built on the site of the current surface parking lot, he indicated that the construction of the parking garage would commence first, with an expected timeline of 12 to 14 months. The power plant will follow a similar schedule before the hospital construction can initiate.
In contrast to Kaiser Permanente’s San Jose hospital, which recently gained city approval for a similar project, HCA and Good Samaritan have encountered significant challenges in their path forward.
Last month, the planning commission recommended that the City Council deny Good Samaritan’s project proposal, with several commissioners criticizing HCA for its historical business strategies that they argue prioritize profits over patient welfare.
The core of their dissatisfaction stemmed from Good Samaritan’s controversial decision to eliminate acute psychiatric beds, alongside HCA’s previous attempt to downgrade the trauma unit at Regional Medical Center in East San Jose—a plan that was ultimately thwarted when the county intervened to restore those critical services.
Nurses voiced their concerns regarding HCA’s capacity to deliver quality patient care in the new facility while struggling to adequately staff the existing hospital.
In a formal response, HCA, represented by attorneys from Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP, labeled the planning commission’s recommendations as arbitrary and legally indefensible.
The hostility directed towards Good Samaritan and HCA persisted on Wednesday when District 5 Councilmember Peter Ortiz called for a deferral to gather more community feedback, reinforcing the notion that the city could either “reward bad actors or choose to hold them accountable.”
“Our general plan holds the city responsible for ensuring our health care resources are planned with equity in mind and to ensure that everyone has access to essential services,” Ortiz reiterated, emphasizing the council’s duty to uphold these principles.
Jaria Jaug, assistant director of care policy at Working Partnerships USA, articulated that advocacy groups are seeking a place at the decision-making table to negotiate the establishment of a patient protection fund featuring community oversight aimed at restoring mental health services at the hospital and preventing future cutbacks.
“The city is tasked with addressing the homelessness and mental health crises,” Jaug emphasized. “Entities that exacerbate these crises should contribute to the community and aid in resolving the pressing issues we face. HCA has a track record of divesting from areas deemed unprofitable, often at the cost of community and mental health care.”
District 6 Councilmember Dev Davis engaged in a heated exchange with Rohan, pressing him repeatedly about the fate of individuals needing acute psychiatric care, but failed to elicit a satisfactory response.
“I’m not just in favor of preserving, protecting, and expanding medical services,” Davis declared. “I think you need to restore these medical services, particularly the urgent mental health needs that we face in this county and community. I find it unacceptable that you closed your psychiatric facilities and now have a new opportunity.”
In contrast, District 9 Councilmember Pam Foley, whose constituency includes the hospital area, chose not to endorse the deferral request and echoed concerns over the adverse consequences of any delays on community health.
Foley pointed out that her office had engaged in substantial community outreach beyond city policy requirements and is actively negotiating with HCA to enhance community benefits flowing from the new hospital development.
“I find it troubling to infer that my office, in coordination with city staff and Good Samaritan, has not executed our due diligence regarding community engagement,” she remarked.
Good Samaritan did not provide answers to inquiries from The Mercury News about the implications for services if the new hospital is not operational by January 1, 2030.
Instead, the hospital reiterated its strong position against any delays, emphasizing the disastrous fallout of postponing its approval.
“Good Samaritan Hospital has consistently engaged with San Jose’s planning process, comprehensively addressing the advantages and impacts of our $1.2 billion proposal and obligatory state-mandated seismic retrofit,” a statement from Good Samaritan Hospital read. “We have incorporated that feedback into the plan submitted to the City Council. Any deferral of our proposal, based on the premise that further feedback is required, jeopardizes the state’s seismic legal timelines and threatens the hospital’s continuous operational capacity.”
Originally Published: November 8, 2024 at 6:05 AM PST
Good Samaritan hospital CEO salary
**Interview with Patrick Rohan, CEO of Good Samaritan Hospital**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Patrick. The San Jose Planning Commission recently recommended denying your hospital’s expansion proposal. Can you elaborate on the implications of that decision for Good Samaritan Hospital and the community?
**Patrick Rohan:** Thank you for having me. The Planning Commission’s recommendation poses significant risks not just for our hospital, but for healthcare access in San Jose. If we don’t move forward with our expansion plans, we could miss critical seismic safety deadlines mandated by the state. The existing facility will become obsolete by 2030, and without compliance, we risk losing our license to operate. This is a matter of urgent community need.
**Interviewer:** You mentioned in the committee meeting that deferring the decision could lead to the hospital’s closure. Can you explain why that is?
**Patrick Rohan:** Absolutely. We have a six-phase construction timeline, and each phase is designed to meet the seismic safety regulations. Any delays in approvals mean we can’t start construction when we need to, which jeopardizes our ability to remain operational. Simply put, without that approval, we’re looking at a real risk of closing a vital community resource that provides essential acute care services.
**Interviewer:** There’s been considerable criticism directed at HCA and Good Samaritan regarding past decisions, such as eliminating acute psychiatric beds. How do you respond to those concerns?
**Patrick Rohan:** I understand the concerns from the community and advocacy groups. However, I want to emphasize that our commitment is to maintain and improve our services. We are moving forward with our expansion plans, which will include enhancements to care, not reductions. We also plan to keep the existing hospital operational during construction to minimize disruption to patient care.
**Interviewer:** The planning commission’s decision seems to reflect broader concerns about HCA’s business practices. Do you believe that these perceptions are influencing the decision-making process?
**Patrick Rohan:** Unfortunately, it seems so. HCA has been mischaracterized in many respects. Our focus is always on patient welfare and improving health outcomes. The historical view of our business strategies is certainly part of the discussion, but we need to separate past actions from the urgency of our current situation. Our project is about ensuring compliance and providing better services for our patients.
**Interviewer:** District 6 Councilmember Dev Davis has expressed concern about the fate of individuals needing acute psychiatric care. How do you plan to address these ongoing mental health needs in the community?
**Patrick Rohan:** We take mental health services very seriously. We’re actively working to restore those services and are part of discussions to ensure patient protections are in place. Community health is a shared responsibility, and we’re committed to re-establishing mental health resources as part of our integrated healthcare model.
**Interviewer:** Looking ahead, what are your hopes for the upcoming City Council meeting and the future of Good Samaritan Hospital?
**Patrick Rohan:** My hope is that the City Council recognizes the urgency of our situation and understands the broader implications of any delay in their decision. We have the opportunity to work together for the betterment of our community. By prioritizing this project, we can ensure that San Jose residents continue to have access to essential healthcare services well into the future.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Patrick. Your insights are invaluable as this situation unfolds. We appreciate you taking the time to speak with us.
**Patrick Rohan:** Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective. We hope to move forward positively for the community’s sake.
