{"id":466632,"date":"2025-12-23T13:01:13","date_gmt":"2025-12-23T13:01:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/466632\/"},"modified":"2025-12-23T13:01:13","modified_gmt":"2025-12-23T13:01:13","slug":"julie-wasserman-hospital-care-is-in-vermonters-best-interest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/466632\/","title":{"rendered":"Julie Wasserman: Hospital care is in Vermonters\u2019 best interest"},"content":{"rendered":"

Commentaries are opinion pieces contributed by readers and newsmakers. VTDigger strives to publish a variety of views from a broad range of Vermonters. Commentaries give voice to community members and do not represent VTDigger\u2019s views. To submit a commentary, follow the instructions here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This commentary is by Julie Wasserman, MPH ,of Burlington. She is an independent health policy advocate who worked for Vermont state government for over 25 years..<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

First and foremost, hospitals need to be responsive to the needs of their community. As non-profit tax-exempt entities, Vermont hospitals are obliged to provide essential services such as maternity, pediatric and primary care. Yet, hospitals are making decisions that deprive their community of critical services as they prioritize revenue generation over needed care. Hospital care in the public\u2019s interest requires structural changes that explicitly address local community needs.<\/p>\n

Vermont hospitals are eliminating essential services, in part, because such services do not generate \u201cenough\u201d revenue. Three examples come to mind. Despite strong community opposition, Copley Hospital eliminated its popular long-standing Birthing Center<\/a>, creating a \u201cmaternity care desert,\u201d where pregnancy, childbirth, post-partum services and reproductive care are no longer available. People must now drive long distances to receive care, and emergency roadside deliveries could become more common. Birthing in Copley\u2019s ER? Unanticipated c-sections? Loss of pediatric backup for newborns and infants? These measures constitute unacceptable care in a hospital setting.<\/p>\n

READ MORE<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Copley\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\tby Olivia Gieger<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tNovember 7, 2025, 7:27 pmNovember 8, 2025, 6:22 pm\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

Loss of Copley\u2019s birthing center further deprives this region of essential primary care, which is already in short supply. Copley\u2019s nurse midwives provided low-cost, high quality, easily accessible primary care because they routinely addressed overweight, hypertension, diabetes, mental health and substance use. (Pregnancy can be a motivator for healthy choices.) Adding insult to injury, closure of the birthing center dramatically increases the cost of care since patients will now receive services at more expensive locations<\/a> such as UVM and Central Vermont.<\/p>\n

Copley, a small rural hospital in Morrisville, employs five orthopedic surgeons, whose combined yearly salaries total more than $4 million<\/a>. Copley\u2019s 2026 Budget includes a new fourth operating room, which increases hospital expenses by 7.9%<\/a>.\u00a0 Note the loss of the birthing center reduces expenses by a mere 2.4%. The five surgeons and the new operating room are both costly and revenue-enhancing.<\/p>\n

UVM Health\/Central Vermont Medical Center shuttered CVMC\u2019s Mad River Family Practice<\/a>, a primary care clinic with a waiting list of more than 500 people seeking to become patients.<\/p>\n

Rutland Regional Medical Center\u2019s original decision to eliminate<\/a> its pediatric inpatient unit offers a third example. Rutland pediatricians, nurses and parents protested this loss of essential hospital care for infants and children who would now be served in the emergency room or sent to UVM Medical Center or Dartmouth. All are more expensive options that further traumatize families and strand those lacking adequate transportation and resources. The hospital has subsequently withdrawn<\/a> its request, circumventing the regulatory Green Mountain Care Board, and instead will work with the Agency of Human Services.<\/p>\n

Will continuation of this \u201cmaximizing revenue\u201d approach lead hospitals to cease serving their local communities and further increase Vermont\u2019s healthcare costs, which is one of the highest in the nation<\/a>? How many more healthcare \u201cdeserts\u201d will appear before we address this trend of hospital revenue maximization at the expense of basic healthcare services?<\/p>\n

Hospital revenue maximization poses a veiled threat to primary care, an essential service that can prevent expensive hospitalizations. In an effort to improve affordability, the legislature and the Green Mountain Care Board have recently imposed a variety of hospital budget constraints (Act 55<\/a>, Act 68<\/a>, Act 49<\/a>). As a result, hospitals\u2019 low-priced, high-value care appears vulnerable to budget cuts. Individual hospitals may benefit from eliminating low-volume services, but the overall cost to the system rises, along with insurance premiums, while local communities lose access to basic care.<\/p>\n

As Erinn Mandeville, a former nurse midwife at Copley noted<\/a>, \u201cSomehow we live in a world where, if it makes financial sense, that\u2019s all you need to justify a completely unethical decision.\u201d Such decisions cannot be made in a vacuum or left solely to local hospitals focused on their bottom line, especially given looming federal cuts. Moreover, these decisions do not make financial sense for the system as a whole.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Basic essential hospital services cannot be optional. Instead, they need to be broadly available in accordance with Vermont statutes. The State should consider the following:\u00a0<\/p>\n