Court is next stage in maternity unit closing
WORCESTER - The lawsuit continues.
That is the message from the law firm representing the City of Leominster in the wake of Saturday’s closure of UMass Memorial Health’s maternity unit in Leominster.
The lawsuit filed in Worcester Superior Court claims Leominster can’t prepare for the impacts from closure until the state Department of Public Health meets its regulatory responsibility and issues a complete written decision that spells out the details of the closure.
“This case is about the DPH not issuing a decision, how that hurts the city and its ability to prepare,” said lawyer Robert Ross at Greenberg Traurig, the Boston firm representing Leominster.
UMass said in a prepared statement that it met the DPH’s regulatory requirements: “While we do not comment on pending litigation, we have closed the inpatient maternity unit at HealthAlliance-Clinton Hospital after fully adhering to the Department of Public Health’s regulatory review process. Closing the unit was the most clinically appropriate course of action.”
The DPH did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A review of the state’s essential hospital closure process does not state that the DPH is required to issue a final closure letter.
Primary concern: Transportation
Transportation is a big concern, said Leominster Mayor Dean J. Mazzarella, because without a decision letter, the city doesn’t know the UMass plan to help pregnant mothers get to alternative maternity sites. Especially those mothers that don’t have access to transportation.
Mazzarella pointed out that Leominster’s ability to respond to emergency pregnancies is compromised after one of the city’s ambulances was damaged in last week’s massive flooding. It’s unclear when that ambulance will be in service, leaving Leominster with two ambulances.
UMass said in its statement that information about the hospital system’s transportation services for pregnant mothers as well as prenatal, labor and delivery, and postnatal services can be found on the health system’s website in multiple languages.
Another concern for Mazzarella is without a closure letter from the DPH, Leominster doesn’t know what UMass plans to do to ensure access to quality maternity care after the unit closed.
“We don’t know where we stand,” said Mazzarella.
4-sentence statement from DPH not enough
Mazzarella and Ross said the latest communication from the DPH that they’re aware of doesn’t cut it. It’s a four-sentence statement the state agency gave to UMass Memorial Health, and it said the DPH will now focus on monitoring and enforcement of the closure plan.
It reads: “DPH remains steadfast in its commitment to safe, high-quality
care for all residents of the commonwealth. UMass Memorial HealthAlliance-Clinton Hospital’s September 11 letter clarifies that it does not have sufficient professional staff to continue to operate the unit safely after September 23. It also included details about the transportation services UMass Memorial is offering to patients and about the capacity of other providers to take on the care that will no longer be provided at Leominster. In these circumstances, DPH has determined that it will now focus on monitoring and enforcement related to the implementation of the closure plan.”
Leominster dropped injunction request
The lawsuit was filed Friday, and it called for a restraining order and application for preliminary injunction to stop closure until a DPH written decision was issued. Monday, Leominster withdrew the injunction request, but the lawsuit continues.
Ross declined to speculate on potential legal outcomes.
Background before lawsuit
UMass Memorial announced in May that it planned to close the Leominster maternity unit due to falling birth rates and a staff shortage. In a July public hearing before the DPH, UMass leadership said the decision had nothing to do with finances.
“Heartbreaking” is how UMass Memorial Health President and Chief Executive Officer Dr. Eric Dickson described the impending closure in an email last week to the health system’s medical providers. But the decision had to be made, said Dickson, because the unit didn’t have adequate staff to protect the health of patients.
Opponents believe the decision was driven by finances.
They claim many of the unit’s patients are lowincome, and MassHealth insurance reimbursements don’t cover the costs of care. To consolidate costs, UMass funnels patients to Worcester, said opponents.
The DPH ruled in August that the UMass plan to close the unit was inadequate because it didn’t preserve access and health status within the hospital’s service area. That ruling asked UMass to postpone closure until a fully formed plan was developed and implemented. UMass moved ahead with closure, citing a staff shortage, especially in obstetrics, that would compromise patient health if the unit remained open.
The DPH has no legal authority to require UMass, or any hospital system, keep an essential service open.