Worcester Business Journal

wbjournal.com | October 29, 2018 | Worcester Business Journal 45 role in teeing up a variety of new developments. Chief among those opportunities for spurring new investment are the redevelopment of the Mount Carmel property bordering I-290, along with the creative reuse of the obsolete Worcester Department of Public Works & Parks facilities off Shrewsbury Street. It has long been recognized the DPW would benefit from upgraded facilities, and moving those operations to a new, modern building elsewhere in town will open up key development parcels along one of the city's most popular streets where private developer interest is tangible. e city manager has already indicated an interest in moving this project forward, and seeing some incremental progress soon will send an important message. While the initial push was around a revitalized downtown, e Hanover eatre has been at the heart of new investment in the city's eatre District, just as Crompton Place has been at the center of new investment in the Canal District. Union Station is another beacon attracting other private investments, but lacks the leasable square footage inside the building to make it a proper destination in its own. e city needs to actively encourage additional small scale development surrounding the building and into Washington Square connecting pedestrian path- ways of activity to the adjoining downtown, Canal District and Shrewsbury Street corridor. at con- nective tissue weaving key developments together requires great care, and must be done with the light hand of government partnering with local entrepre- neurs. While there is a lot on the plate of Worcester's development team, now is not the time to sit back and celebrate. Pushing to bring more projects for- ward to contribute to stronger neighborhoods and a more robust tax base is key. Let's strike when the iron is hot and keep the momentum going. Keep the Worcester development rolling Question 1 is a bad investment V I E W P O I N T E D I T O R I A L B ased on the buzz coming from the suc- cessful recruitment of the Red Sox Triple A team, the sustained increase of develop- ment activity in the city's downtown and the burgeoning foodie and entertainment scene, the city is hot as a pistol. When compared to the previous pace of development, the Worcester Red Sox deal will move at lightspeed to design, fund and construct a $101-million dollar stadium in three short years. However, long-term success will come from a continued mix of desirable projects making their way into the pipeline, and the sooner the better. One of the early catalyst of today's hot devel- opment market in the heart of the city was the restoration of Worcester's Union Station. Abandoned and le to the elements in the 1970s, the rundown train station was slated for the wrecking ball in the early '90s until the momentum shied, along with millions in federal transportation dollars, and the building and its iconic towers were restored in 1999. Its current role as a transportation hub came only aer two decades of quixotic attempts failed. is past week saw the opening of the $21-mil- lion Blackstone Heritage Corridor Visitor Center in Worcester – a project almost derailed aer a debilitating fire in 2010, which has been in the planning stages for 15-plus years. It took a many years of discussion and planning to finally remove large elements of the Worcester Center Galleria and restore Front Street, and a lot of public investment to spur the private dollars fueling the city's down- town development. e successful South Worcester Industrial Park and the redevelopment of the former WRTA headquarters are two more examples of the long journey public-private development can take. An important factor in keeping Worcester mo- mentum going in the right direction will be the city's M assachusetts residents will soon go to the polls to consider Question 1, a ballot measure mandating specific nurse-to-patient staffing ratios in all hos- pitals. Before deciding, voters should follow the path of any good business: determine the financial investment and the return on that investment. A new report helps us do that. e Massachusetts Health Policy Commission is an independent state agency created to monitor growth of healthcare costs. It analyzed Question 1 to understand its impact on costs. It issued a report of its findings Oct. 3. How big is the investment? Very big. e HPC estimates Question 1 would cost up to $949 million per year. Much of this cost would be the result of a need to hire thousands of additional nurses to meet the new ratios. Because these nurses do not currently exist, market forces will cause significant disruptions by increas- ing nursing wages in general and drawing nurses away from other environments where they are desperately needed, like behavioral health care, nursing homes and assisted living. Who will pay this cost? We all will. e HPC conclud- ed Question 1 could lead to higher commercial prices for hospital care, potentially leading to higher premiums. e Massachusetts Association of Health Plans is even stronger, warning that higher premiums is a likely result. So what is the return on that investment? Will $1 billion in new costs be worth it? Aer all, if there is a good return on that investment, in terms of dramatic improvements in the quality of patient outcomes in our hospitals, then perhaps we should all be willing to pay for it. Here, too, the HPC provides clarity. It analyzed the results on quality of care in California – the only state in the nation to have passed mandated ratios into law. Aer a detailed review of the literature, it found California's ratios did not systemati- cally improve the quality of patient care. What is even more compelling is HPC's finding Mas- sachusetts hospitals already have better quality care than California hospitals. It looked at six well-recognized quality measures most influenced by nurses. ese include mea- sures like the rate of certain hospital-acquired infections. Massachusetts outperformed California on five of those six. But what about our nurses? Nurses are critical to deliver- ing high quality care in hospitals. And they have legitimate issues, as health care has become incredibly specialized and complex and the demands are great. But health care – especially in hospitals – is now a team sport. ere are many important members of that team, and it demeans all other caregivers to create a government-imposed staffing ratio for one part of the team at the expense of all others. Finally, the data does not demonstrate Massachusetts hospitals fare any worse than other states with our nurse staffing. In fact, the HPC found staffing levels for nurses in Massachusetts is higher than California and nationally. I don't believe Question 1 is a reasonable solution to any healthcare problem. I plan to vote no on the measure. Douglas S. Brown is president of community hospitals and chief administrative officer at UMass Memorial Health Care in Worcester. BY DOUGLAS S. BROWN Special to the Worcester Business Journal Douglas S. Brown The Worcester Business Journal welcomes letters to the editor and commentary submissions. Please send submissions to Brad Kane, editor, at bkane@wbjournal.com. L E T T E R W W W BJ's article, "Labor vs. Administration: Ballot pits nurses against hospitals" quoted a Saint Vincent Hospital spokes- woman saying Question 1 would be devastating for local community health centers, nursing homes, behavioral health treatment and home care. at is incorrect because Question 1 specifically limits the proposed staffing measures to hospitals, and it does not cover rehabilitation or long-term care facilities. e article notes the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission had concerns the mandate would not result in enough savings to offset its costs. ere cer- tainly will be substantial payroll costs. But Question 1 is designed to reduce medical errors, patient and em- ployee injuries, and shorten patient stays. e staffing measures will reduce the costs of those problems. Healthcare cost savings will result from reducing Question 1 will improve hospital care the high levels of workplace injuries to nurses and reducing patient outcomes such as injuries, readmis- sion shortly aer release, or death in the hospital. Following California's implementation of a similar nurse staffing measure, medical errors and patient injuries stopped their steady increases. One study found a 30-percent drop in hospital nurses injuries. Question 1 was put on the ballot to establish the same benefits here. e hospital industry misrep- resents the ballot question language and the decades of research showing the need for patient-to-nurse limits. It's a shame the opposition to Question 1 can't engage in honest dialog. Question 1 will lead to hospital care improvements. at is why I'm voting for it. Craig Slatin is professor emeritus in the Department of Public Health at UMass Lowell. W

• Cover