Study Shows Summers/LHA/BLer "Plan" Will Result In HIGHER DEATH RATES for Lakewood

[Brian Essi]

What has been lost is the fabricated firestorm caused by Blers' in reaction to my provocative "Blood on Your Hands" post is this:

How do Lakewoodites value the lives of our neighbors, especially the most vulnerable among us?

What is the personal responsibility of those neighbors who politicize the issue with false information for their own economic or other interests?

These are provocative questions.

It goes to the heart of a key principle upon which our country was founded: "Love thy Neighbor"

Thanks to Bridget Conant for posting the study and to the Deck, this debate is grounded in scientific study and facts.

Last night I sent the following email to our elected leaders.

I have added bold and size to some quotes from the study.

Please note from the LHA mailer that arrived in your mailboxes this week, that the new "ER" does not include services that would save someone suffering from heart attack or stoke, so the study Bridget brought to our attention squarely points to the critical issue of Love.

From: Brian Essi

Oct 8 at 10:32 PM

ToMike Summers,
Mary Madigan,
Mary Hagan,
Sam O'Leary,
Tom Bullock,
Mary Madigan,
Ryan Nowlin
Cindy Marx,
David Anderson
Shawn Juris

Mrs. Hagan,

I would like this communication to be placed in the official City Council records.

Dear Elected Leaders,

I attach a UCSF article for your consideration on the topic that was the subject of City Council's Monday meeting. The information concerning heart attack, stoke and sepsis is of particular concern since I understand that the proposed "ER" will not be able to treat those conditions.

I have taken the following quotes from the article that I find particularly relevant to the point that I was making in my post and to Council:

"In the first analysis of its kind, UC San Francisco research shows that emergency department closures can have a ripple effect on patient outcomes at nearby hospitals."

"In a study of more than 16 million emergency admissions to California hospitals between 1999 and 2010, researchers found that patients who were admitted to facilities located in the vicinity of an emergency department (ED) that had recently closed experienced 5 percent higher odds of dying than patients admitted to hospitals that were not near a recently closed ED."

"The odds of dying were even higher for patients with certain time-sensitive conditions, especially heart attack (15 percent higher odds), stroke (10 percent) and sepsis (8 percent). The findings are of particular concern nationwide, said the authors, because the annual number of ED visits increased by 51 percent between 1996 and 2009, while the number of available emergency departments dropped by 6 percent."

“Our findings indicate that disproportionate numbers of ED closures may be driving up inpatient mortality in communities and hospitals with more minority, Medicaid and low-income patients, and contributing to existing disparities in health outcomes,” said Hsia. “These results suggest that health systems and policy makers should consider the ripple effect on communities when they regulate ED closures.”

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/07/11646 ... ave-closed

The full study can be found at:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/8/1323.full

May I suggest that the Council President take the subject more seriously in the future and that the folks from Cleveland.com act more responsibly in their future reporting on this very serious subject involving real lives in Lakewood and nearby communities.

In my view, the proposed ""ER" should not be spun into something it is not for political purposes.

I stand by my statement that death has already occurred at Lakewood Hospital--President Madigan as an LHA Trustee is able to verify this without my involvement.

Finally, I would like to give special thanks to Bridget Conant for bringing this study and other valuable information to the debate via her regular posts on the Observation Deck.

Sincerely,

Brian J. Essi

[Brian Essi]

It is telling that not one BLer has attempted to reply to these scientific facts.

They are truly lost souls in a very dark place.

[Bridget Conant]

There is no doubt that hospital closures compromise the health and safety of citizens, particularly the most vulnerable - the poor, the elderly, the uninsured. Research in multiple cities confirms that truth. Here is another:

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/ho ... ses?page=2

An important quote:

“It’s hard to quantify, but no doubt people are suffering every day,” Smedley said, noting that access to health care has become a moral argument -- do we want to be the sole top 10 industiralized nation that provides care only to those who can afford it? Are we willing to let people die for lack of it? -- as well as an economic one.

Allowing the Hospital to close without seeking alternatives that would allow it remain as a full service facility is unconscionable. Years from now, will we regret that we didn't take a stand against this trend that is driven by money and profits at the expense of real people? When it's gone, it's gone, we can't reconsider. NOW is the time to really think about what we want and how we care about one another. OR NOT.

[Brian Essi]

Even with more insured patients under the ACA, energency room use is increasing.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-emergen ... 1430712061

And here is why:

Medicaid recipients newly insured under the health law are struggling to get appointments or find doctors who will accept their coverage, and consequently wind up in the ER, ACEP said. Volume might also be increasing due to hospital and emergency-department closures—a long-standing trend.

All well and good to ask people to see a primary care doctor instead of using an emergency room, but the fact remains that for many, getting in to see a primary care doctor in a timely manner is a challenge. I have seen nothing that indicates this will be changing in the future.

In fact, when the hospital leaves, doctors will follow and there will be fewer primary care doctors with offices in Lakewood. As many of our residents do not have access to vehicles, bus service to Fairview is time consuming, and there is NO bus service to Avon, the difficulty in getting to a primary care appointment is compounded.

I think it's very arrogant to say "if people went to a primary care doctor we wouldn't need an emergency room," just as it is arrogant to say a caregiver should be able to clear an obstructed airway. It would be nice if that were so, but real life gets in the way. People can't get in to see their doctor on short notice and people panic when a child is choking. None of this is going to change so basing your opinion of future ER usage numbers on those examples is inaccurate and dangerous.

Bridget,

You've done it again.

The evidence in your UCSF and WSJ discoveries shows the loss of the ER and doctors will result in the loss of life.

That raises an important question: How does Lakewood value the lives of the most vulnerable among us?

[cameron karslake]

Time and time again, we are seeing contemporary studies that prove the CCF's "transformation" of healthcare is a profit driven hoax. Every talking point they've presented has been proven false, over and over.

When will people wake up to this reality?

When will people begin to care about this reality?

When it finally affects one of their loved ones?

Too late!

[Brian Essi]

bump

[jackie f taylor]

At my age and with my delicate condition, that's not something I wanted to hear, but thank you for the information. Maybe I should move closer to Fairview General, that would be in my best interest.

[T Peppard]

I would like this communication to be placed in the official City Council records.

Dear Elected Leaders,

I attach a UCSF article for your consideration on the topic that was the subject of City Council's Monday meeting. The information concerning heart attack, stoke and sepsis is of particular concern since I understand that the proposed "ER" will not be able to treat those conditions.

I have taken the following quotes from the article that I find particularly relevant to the point that I was making in my post and to Council:

"In the first analysis of its kind, UC San Francisco research shows that emergency department closures can have a ripple effect on patient outcomes at nearby hospitals."

"In a study of more than 16 million emergency admissions to California hospitals between 1999 and 2010, researchers found that patients who were admitted to facilities located in the vicinity of an emergency department (ED) that had recently closed experienced 5 percent higher odds of dying than patients admitted to hospitals that were not near a recently closed ED."

"The odds of dying were even higher for patients with certain time-sensitive conditions, especially heart attack (15 percent higher odds), stroke (10 percent) and sepsis (8 percent). The findings are of particular concern nationwide, said the authors, because the annual number of ED visits increased by 51 percent between 1996 and 2009, while the number of available emergency departments dropped by 6 percent."

“Our findings indicate that disproportionate numbers of ED closures may be driving up inpatient mortality in communities and hospitals with more minority, Medicaid and low-income patients, and contributing to existing disparities in health outcomes,” said Hsia. “These results suggest that health systems and policy makers should consider the ripple effect on communities when they regulate ED closures.”

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/07/11646 ... ave-closed

The full study can be found at:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/8/1323.full

May I suggest that the Council President take the subject more seriously in the future and that the folks from Cleveland.com act more responsibly in their future reporting on this very serious subject involving real lives in Lakewood and nearby communities.

In my view, the proposed ""ER" should not be spun into something it is not for political purposes.

I stand by my statement that death has already occurred at Lakewood Hospital--President Madigan as an LHA Trustee is able to verify this without my involvement.

Finally, I would like to give special thanks to Bridget Conant for bringing this study and other valuable information to the debate via her regular posts on the Observation Deck.

Sincerely,

Brian J. Essi

Utterly irrefutable... I would also like to express my gratitude to Bridget Conant. Her research is absolutely remarkable.

I am still trying to fathom how our city leaders could deny these facts and so glad their recent attempts to convince the people this is a good deal have backfired.

[Marguerite Harkness]

Jackie, read very carefully.
Moving closer to Fairview Hospital is not the answer. Patients in THEIR ER face a higher risk of death, due to the closure of Lakewood Hospital and its real ER.
This affects way more than just Lakewood folks.

[jackie f taylor]

I'm just saying, the closer I am to help, the better my chances.... do they rent rooms? they should, imagine, an assisted living residence, where the Cleveland clinic is at your front door.... where do I sign?

[jackie f taylor]

I don't want to go yet, I want to watch the debates between Hillarious and shump, and then see who wins, then take me lord...

[Brian Essi]

What has been lost is the fabricated firestorm caused by Blers' in reaction to my provocative "Blood on Your Hands" post is this:

How do Lakewoodites value the lives of our neighbors, especially the most vulnerable among us?

What is the personal responsibility of those neighbors who politicize the issue with false information for their own economic or other interests?

These are provocative questions.

It goes to the heart of a key principle upon which our country was founded: "Love thy Neighbor"

Thanks to Bridget Conant for posting the study and to the Deck, this debate is grounded in scientific study and facts.

Last night I sent the following email to our elected leaders.

I have added bold and size to some quotes from the study.

Please note from the LHA mailer that arrived in your mailboxes this week, that the new "ER" does not include services that would save someone suffering from heart attack or stoke, so the study Bridget brought to our attention squarely points to the critical issue of Love.

From: Brian Essi

Oct 8 at 10:32 PM

ToMike Summers,
Mary Madigan,
Mary Hagan,
Sam O'Leary,
Tom Bullock,
Mary Madigan,
Ryan Nowlin
Cindy Marx,
David Anderson
Shawn Juris

Mrs. Hagan,

I would like this communication to be placed in the official City Council records.

Dear Elected Leaders,

I attach a UCSF article for your consideration on the topic that was the subject of City Council's Monday meeting. The information concerning heart attack, stoke and sepsis is of particular concern since I understand that the proposed "ER" will not be able to treat those conditions.

I have taken the following quotes from the article that I find particularly relevant to the point that I was making in my post and to Council:

"In the first analysis of its kind, UC San Francisco research shows that emergency department closures can have a ripple effect on patient outcomes at nearby hospitals."

"In a study of more than 16 million emergency admissions to California hospitals between 1999 and 2010, researchers found that patients who were admitted to facilities located in the vicinity of an emergency department (ED) that had recently closed experienced 5 percent higher odds of dying than patients admitted to hospitals that were not near a recently closed ED."

"The odds of dying were even higher for patients with certain time-sensitive conditions, especially heart attack (15 percent higher odds), stroke (10 percent) and sepsis (8 percent). The findings are of particular concern nationwide, said the authors, because the annual number of ED visits increased by 51 percent between 1996 and 2009, while the number of available emergency departments dropped by 6 percent."

“Our findings indicate that disproportionate numbers of ED closures may be driving up inpatient mortality in communities and hospitals with more minority, Medicaid and low-income patients, and contributing to existing disparities in health outcomes,” said Hsia. “These results suggest that health systems and policy makers should consider the ripple effect on communities when they regulate ED closures.”

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/07/11646 ... ave-closed

The full study can be found at:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/8/1323.full

May I suggest that the Council President take the subject more seriously in the future and that the folks from Cleveland.com act more responsibly in their future reporting on this very serious subject involving real lives in Lakewood and nearby communities.

In my view, the proposed ""ER" should not be spun into something it is not for political purposes.

I stand by my statement that death has already occurred at Lakewood Hospital--President Madigan as an LHA Trustee is able to verify this without my involvement.

Finally, I would like to give special thanks to Bridget Conant for bringing this study and other valuable information to the debate via her regular posts on the Observation Deck.

Sincerely,

Brian J. Essi

29 months later and no answer from Tom Bullock (or any other elected official).

People may be dying to vote for him.....if they make it it the polls.

[Brian Essi]

What has been lost is the fabricated firestorm caused by Blers' in reaction to my provocative "Blood on Your Hands" post is this:

How do Lakewoodites value the lives of our neighbors, especially the most vulnerable among us?

What is the personal responsibility of those neighbors who politicize the issue with false information for their own economic or other interests?

These are provocative questions.

It goes to the heart of a key principle upon which our country was founded: "Love thy Neighbor"

Thanks to Bridget Conant for posting the study and to the Deck, this debate is grounded in scientific study and facts.

Last night I sent the following email to our elected leaders.

I have added bold and size to some quotes from the study.

Please note from the LHA mailer that arrived in your mailboxes this week, that the new "ER" does not include services that would save someone suffering from heart attack or stoke, so the study Bridget brought to our attention squarely points to the critical issue of Love.

From: Brian Essi

Oct 8 at 10:32 PM

ToMike Summers,
Mary Madigan,
Mary Hagan,
Sam O'Leary,
Tom Bullock,
Mary Madigan,
Ryan Nowlin
Cindy Marx,
David Anderson
Shawn Juris

Mrs. Hagan,

I would like this communication to be placed in the official City Council records.

Dear Elected Leaders,

I attach a UCSF article for your consideration on the topic that was the subject of City Council's Monday meeting. The information concerning heart attack, stoke and sepsis is of particular concern since I understand that the proposed "ER" will not be able to treat those conditions.

I have taken the following quotes from the article that I find particularly relevant to the point that I was making in my post and to Council:

"In the first analysis of its kind, UC San Francisco research shows that emergency department closures can have a ripple effect on patient outcomes at nearby hospitals."

"In a study of more than 16 million emergency admissions to California hospitals between 1999 and 2010, researchers found that patients who were admitted to facilities located in the vicinity of an emergency department (ED) that had recently closed experienced 5 percent higher odds of dying than patients admitted to hospitals that were not near a recently closed ED."

"The odds of dying were even higher for patients with certain time-sensitive conditions, especially heart attack (15 percent higher odds), stroke (10 percent) and sepsis (8 percent). The findings are of particular concern nationwide, said the authors, because the annual number of ED visits increased by 51 percent between 1996 and 2009, while the number of available emergency departments dropped by 6 percent."

“Our findings indicate that disproportionate numbers of ED closures may be driving up inpatient mortality in communities and hospitals with more minority, Medicaid and low-income patients, and contributing to existing disparities in health outcomes,” said Hsia. “These results suggest that health systems and policy makers should consider the ripple effect on communities when they regulate ED closures.”

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/07/11646 ... ave-closed

The full study can be found at:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/8/1323.full

May I suggest that the Council President take the subject more seriously in the future and that the folks from Cleveland.com act more responsibly in their future reporting on this very serious subject involving real lives in Lakewood and nearby communities.

In my view, the proposed ""ER" should not be spun into something it is not for political purposes.

I stand by my statement that death has already occurred at Lakewood Hospital--President Madigan as an LHA Trustee is able to verify this without my involvement.

Finally, I would like to give special thanks to Bridget Conant for bringing this study and other valuable information to the debate via her regular posts on the Observation Deck.

Sincerely,

Brian J. Essi

29 months later and no answer from Tom Bullock (or any other elected official).

People may be dying to vote for him.....if they make it it the polls.

29 months later, and Councilman Anderson still has not responded. Instead, he cherry-picks statistics and plays politics with a nearly desolate and failing ER resulting in potential danger to the health and well being of Lakewood residents in an effort to justify his role in the Grandest Scandal in the History of Lakewood.