More public input is needed in Petaluma Valley Hospital decision

The publicly elected Petaluma Health Care District is embarking on a major decision to pick the future operator of the city’s hospital. The public needs to stay engaged on the issue, and the district must provide all the necessary information.|

The Petaluma Health Care District normally operates with little public scrutiny, but it is poised to receive a lot more attention than usual. The district’s publicly elected board is nearing the biggest decision it has made in 20 years, one that could change the health care landscape for southern Sonoma County. It’s a decision that requires public information and input.

The board is tasked with deciding the future operator of Petaluma Valley Hospital, the city’s only acute care facility, which is owned by the health care district. The 20-year lease with St. Joseph Health, the current hospital operator, expires in 14 months, and the district has embarked on a process to determine the next operator.

St. Joseph has bid to continue its role managing the hospital along with another not-for-profit, Sutter Health, which owns hospitals in Santa Rosa and Novato. Also bidding are Ontario-based Prime Healthcare Services, which operates 38 hospitals in 11 states, and Strategic Global Management of Riverside.

The health care district has given the four bidders 60 days to refine their proposals. After that, the district has promised that it will hold workshops with the public to discuss the future of Petaluma Valley Hospital. We applaud the outreach, which should include a detailed dive into each of the four bids and bidders, and an explanation of the pros and cons of each.

Ultimately, the public will decide who will manage the community’s hospital through an up-or-down vote on the district’s recommended operator. But so far, the public has been largely shut out of the process, except for a round of public focus groups held earlier this year to identify community priorities for the hospital.

The district has held monthly meetings about the hospital with The Camden Group, a healthcare consulting firm, for more than two years, but the first meeting that was open to the public was last week. All of the other meetings have been behind closed doors.

When the board ultimately does make a recommendation, it should do so with considerable public input so that when the district’s recommendation comes before voters, the outcome will not be in doubt. The district should avoid a situation where voters reject the board’s recommendation as that could delay the transition past the expiration of the current lease. In that case, an extension with St. Joseph would need to be worked out, or the district would be forced to temporarily run the hospital, which is not a desirable option.

Choosing the future operator of Petaluma Valley Hospital is not a small decision. The public should be out in front of the decision making process and given access to all relevant information. After all, Petaluma Valley is the public’s hospital.

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.