3 in Bay Area would gain
seismic upgrades at the Oakland hospital, and for technology and medical equipment at the Oakland and San Francisco hospitals, according to Dr. Michael Anderson, president of UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals. That would include defibrillators, scanners to detect tumors and an electronic health records system.
Lucile Packard would use the bond money to upgrade the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit, or NICU, according to the hospital’s interim CEO and chief medical officer, Dr. Dennis Lund. The hospital’s current NICU is configured as multiple large rooms housing several patients each, a design that was popular when the hospital first opened in the 1980s, but is now outdated and does not allow for the technology needed to support the babies, Lund said. Prop. 4 also would enable the space to be updated to include more private spaces.
The nonprofit hospitals are slated to receive a greater share of the money, 72 percent, compared to the UC hospitals’ 18 percent because the former serve more uninsured and low-income kids. The remaining 10 percent would go to other California hospitals that do not specialize in treating children but participate in California Children’s Service Program, which provides specialized treatments for mostly low-income kids with complex chronic conditions.
Prop. 4, drafted and sponsored by the California Children’s Hospital Association, is the third bond measure voters have faced for children’s hospitals since 2004. Proposition 61, approved in 2004, authorized $750 million for infrastructure needs. Proposition 3, approved in 2008, raised $980 million for the construction and remodeling of children’s hospitals. The hospital association was the main backer of all three.
Proponents of Prop. 4 — including the association and the hospitals that stand to gain millions of dollars — have raised nearly $11 million to push for its passage. No money has been raised in opposition, according to the California secretary of state.
If approved, Prop. 4 would be limited to infrastructure spending, including getting hospitals up to code for new seismic standards by 2030.
It would cost taxpayers $2.9 billion, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. It would take an estimated 35 years, averaging $80 million annually, to pay off the bond.
Each children’s hospital spends between $30 and $50 million of its own money each year to improve infrastructure and equipment, according to Ann-Louise Kuhns, president of the California Children’s Hospital Association. But because the hospitals receive most of their funding from MediCal, the joint federal-state insurance program for the poor that pays hospitals at lower rates than commercial health insurance companies do, “it’s very hard for them to make those ends meet,” Kuhns said.
If Prop. 4 does not pass, the eight nonprofit hospitals might have to reduce capacity unless they find another funding source.
UCSF and Lucile Packard are among hospitals donating money for the initiative. There is no organized opposition. The official opposition, written by Mountain View resident Gary Wesley, raises concerns over taxpayer costs.