Where we are now - Imperial Valley Coalition for Sustainable Healthcare Facilities

Acquisition of El Centro Memorial Hospital and dissolution of PMHD and HMHD

Current status: Negotiations on-going

The IVHD has signed a letter of intent with El Centro. The terms and cost of the acquisition have been negotiated in secret and have not been made public.

IVHD is also recommending the dissolution of the Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District (PMHD) on December 1 and Heffernan Memorial Healthcare District (HMHD) on October 1, 2024. Dissolution does not change the current tax structure. PMHD will continue to pay taxes where they have no control and HMHD pays for no hospital.

Funding mechanism

Current status: No ballot proposal to fund the new district in 2024

The IVHD board now admits that it cannot meet the obligation of AB 918 to identify a permanent funding source for the IVHD, nor can it hold an election for said funding source in time to meet the law’s mandate.

To compensate for this failure, Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia and Senator Steve Padilla have publicly suggested that the IVHD seize the tax dollars of the people in the Heffernan (Calexico) and PMHD (Niland, Westmorland, Salton City Area, Calipatria and Brawley) areas to prop up the unknown finances of a state mandated countywide healthcare district. The seizure process remains unclear.

Pending litigation

Current status: Lawsuit to stop AB 918 now before the courts

PMHD has filed a Federal lawsuit arguing that AB 918 has adversely affected its operations and threatens to undermine healthcare in the Imperial Valley. In response, Garcia and Padilla have called for a stop to legal action.

Yet even as they do so, they and the IVHD Board still haven’t addressed the flaws. Whatever the outcome of the suit, elected leaders failed to listen to the warnings, leaving the courts as the public’s only remedy.

Conclusion

The process outlined by AB 918 has failed. Its timetables for merging complex systems (including licensing, healthcare records, IT, administration and billing, and negotiated labor contracts) are not realistic and potentially put our healthcare at significant risk. Moreover, the question of AB 918’s legality needs to be decided by the courts.

Our diverse county’s residents would be best served by slowing the process, allowing the courts (and voters) to have a say, and re-starting the process with a well-planned education and outreach effort to better understand the needs of residents and realities of funding and operating a single healthcare district in this rural county. And by bringing all this—establishment of and funding for a new district—directly to the voters, as required by law.

There is simply too much at stake to fumble through AB 918’s rushed process.

On the next page, we look at the language of AB 918 and outline some recommendations for amending it.

Signs of trouble

Board conduct

Current status: Little to no public outreach

Assessment of financial viability

Current status: Feasibility assessment not completed