>Valley admits it needs higher patent turnover to pay for “Renewal”
In an article in Sunday’s the Bergen Record https://www.northjersey.com/news/health/Hospitals_plead_case_against_Pascack_Valley.html
Valley’s CFO Richard Keenan stated that “while Valley Hospital’s survival would not be threatened by the proposed reopening [of PVH], [Valley] would lose half of the caseload it gained as a result of Pascack Valley’s closure and would reduce income from operations by about $12 million a year. A reduction in operating income of that magnitude would force us to modify or delay essential capital projects [RENEWAL] we had planned.”
From the introduction of the “Case for Renewal” in September 27, 2006, Valley has continually stated that only 3 more beds would cause little increase in patients, visitors or traffic. Keenan’s statements contradict this claim as he admits for the first time that Valley needed to increase revenue, through patient turnover to pay for the Renewal.
It is also interesting that the traffic study was conveniently undertaken one year after the “Renewal” presentation, after Pascack Valley had closed and had traffic increased. This means that the traffic study is flawed as it was calculated on the wrong baseline.
If the Valley Hospital is unsuccessful at stopping the reopening of 128 beds at Pascack Valley hospital, should the Planning Board abandon its proposed changes to the Master Plan H-Zone?