“Profits over people”: Good Samaritan’s San Jose campus improvements hit snag at planning commission

Accusing Good Samaritan Hospital of putting profits over people, the San Jose Planning Commission is recommending the City Council deny the healthcare agency’s request to rezone its campus as part of its larger vision to build a new hospital that complies with the state’s seismic requirements by 2030.

Good Samaritan, owned by HCA Healthcare, had requested the rezoning to increase its floor size as the hospital eventually plans to replace most of the facilities on its campus at 2425 Good Samaritan Drive.

But HCA’s past moves – including closing down psychiatric units at Good Samaritan and the decision to downgrade Regional Medical Center’s trauma center that prompted Santa Clara County to purchase the hospital – clouded much of the discussion with commissioners chastising the healthcare behemoth.

“Your pattern seems to be to maximize profitability at all costs, including the cost to the community,” Commissioner Charles Cantrell said. “That’s not what good business does. I completely support maximizing profitability of any good business … but when you divest from communities because you’re no longer profitable, you provide significant harm to communities that have become dependent on your service.”

While the planning commission did not recommend approval, the City Council will be the final arbiter of the decision. Good Samaritan plans to submit development permits for its proposed new buildings in the coming weeks.

Russell Triplett, an associate principal at architecture firm Perkins&Will, said Good Samaritan planned to redevelop its campus over three phases, beginning with the construction of a new garage and central power station before building the new hospital, which will keep the bed count approximately the same as it is now. Good Samaritan said it will not tear down the current hospital until the new building is complete.

The healthcare provider has envisioned the changes for years because of seismic requirements for older hospitals. Triplett said Good Samaritan would lose its license without retrofitting the current building or constructing a new hospital by 2030.

The San Jose City Council recently approved Kaiser Permanente’s plans to build a new hospital to meet seismic requirements. However, the difference in sentiment between Kaiser and Good Samaritan’s project was night and day, as the bulk of the commentary on Wednesday blasted HCA.

Fresh on the minds of many of the organizations or residents that spoke out against Good Samaritan’s project was the drama that surrounded Regional Medical Center in East San Jose.

HCA initially planned to close the Regional Medical Center’s trauma center before reversing its decision and downgrading it from a Level II to a Level III facility, which still removed critical services. Community leaders and healthcare professionals panned the decision, which would have disproportionately affected Vietnamese and Latino communities before the county stepped up and purchased the hospital.

“The ongoing healthcare crisis in our community, particularly affecting Latinx families, cannot be overlooked,” said Gabby Chavez-Lopez, the executive director of Latina Coalition of Silicon Valley. “As we know, these communities have faced significant barriers to accessing quality health care and the actions of HCA have demonstrated a troubling pattern of prioritizing profits over patient care, leading to the closure of critical services and eroding community trust in our healthcare system. Just like a person, when someone shows you or a corporation shows you who they are the first time, believe them.”

Commissioners also peppered Good Samaritan COO Jerry Gonzalez with questions about its profits and HCA’s other controversies.

Gonzalez was largely unprepared for those questions, noting he was asked to address the land-use issues, but offered to provide answers at another time. This prompted commissioners to call his answers disingenuous and question why HCA did not send more representatives.

Commissioner Carlos Rosario, who previously served on the Santa Clara County Health Advisory Commission, called HCA a bad actor and said he would like to see the company leave San Jose altogether.

“I think HCA is systematically worsening the healthcare industry in this city,” Rosario said. “I have no problem with (private equity), but I do have an issue with that money being made off the health of the people in our city. If we’re trying to be one of the best cities to live in in this country, I don’t think HCA is helping that. Based on its patterns and practices, I don’t think HCA is going to be beneficial to the city, moving forward past the 2030s.”

Commissioner Pierluigi Oliverio cast the lone dissenting vote, noting the benefits of expanding healthcare in the area while stressing the commission’s job of focusing on land-use issues.

“I’m sure when anyone views this meeting, they’re going to see the rationale has nothing to do with land use,” Oliverio said. “It’s all about people’s personal views of a company, which are, you know, everyone has a variety of opinions on a variety of corporations and how they rank in favorability, etc.”