31°Good evening
Nassau University Medical Center in East Meadow.

Nassau University Medical Center in East Meadow. Credit: Newsday/J. Conrad Williams Jr.

Daily Point

Proposed tweaks to public health statute detail state powers over some ailing hospitals

Deep in Gov. Kathy Hochul’s executive budget documents are proposed changes to public health law that seem to be aimed at Nassau University Medical Center — while never mentioning NUMC at all.

Hochul’s 230-page proposed health and mental hygiene budget bill revises the "temporary operator statute" — a part of law that allows the state to appoint someone to temporarily assume control and responsibility for a public facility that is "experiencing serious financial instability that is jeopardizing existing or continued access to essential services within a community."

Hochul and her team discussed using the statute to install a temporary operator at NUMC last year but never took action.

Now state officials are clarifying the law to specify which facilities could be impacted — and the role of a temporary operator. Those changes seem to apply to entities like NUMC and its public benefits corporation, Nassau Health Care Corp.

The proposed changes say the statute could apply to any operator of "a facility, including corporations established pursuant to article ten-C of the public authorities law." That simplifies language that previously included "adult care facilities, a general hospital or a diagnostic and treatment center" among institutions to which the law applied.

Such a shift might seem innocuous. But article ten-C of public authorities law is titled "New York Health Care Corporations" — and covers just a few entities across the state: Westchester County Health Care Corp., Roswell Park Cancer Institute Corporation, Clifton-Fine Health Care Corporation, Erie County Medical Center Corporation, and Nassau Health Care Corporation.

Beyond explicitly including institutions like NUMC in the temporary operator clause, the proposed changes also provide a temporary operator with additional power in key management areas.

"The temporary operator’s authority shall include, but not be limited to, hiring or firing of the facility administrator and other key management employees; maintenance and control of the books and records; authority over the disposition of assets and the incurring of liabilities on behalf of the facility; and the adoption and enforcement of policies regarding the operation of the facility," the added section said.

That would have particular significance for NUMC, since discussions of the hospital’s future have included potential changes to top management, including board chairman Matthew Bruderman and chief executive Megan Ryan.

The changes also expand a temporary operator’s term, saying that in addition to the initial 180-day term, the state could authorize two additional 180-day terms, a change from the previously available 90-day extensions.

The proposed changes also provide additional options if the existing operator returns to the facility — and doesn’t follow through on the temporary operator’s changes.

"If the established operator at any time demonstrates unwillingness to make or implement changes identified in the final report, the commissioner may extend the term of, or reinstate, the temporary operator and/or the commissioner may move to amend or revoke the established operator’s operating certificate," the new language says.

The changes also make it easier to appoint a temporary operator in the first place. The statute previously required an administrative hearing before the appointment. But under the new language, the official appointment can be made before any hearing is held, saying only that a hearing must occur no later than 30 days from the date an operator is appointed.

State officials did not respond to The Point’s queries regarding whether the changes were specifically related to concerns about NUMC, or whether they opened the door for state officials to invoke the statute for NUMC. The state budget, which still requires negotiation and legislative approval, should be adopted by April 1.

"The wording simply clarifies the powers a temporary operator would have if the statute were ever invoked," Hochul spokesman Gordon Tepper told The Point.

But an NHCC spokesman criticized the proposed changes, alluding to a lawsuit the hospital has filed against the state, alleging that the state owes the hospital $1 billion.

"The fact that the Hochul administration is proposing this change is proof positive the threats they’ve made to take control of NUMC are presently not supported by law," the spokesman wrote in a statement provided to The Point. "Any effort on the part of Albany politicians to seize control of Nassau’s health care would be fought strenuously because it would be totally unjustified and a smokescreen for the massive Medicaid fraud scheme the administration continues to cover up."

— Randi F. Marshall randi.marshall@newsday.com

Pencil Point

China in the bull shop

Credit: Patreon.com/jeffreykoterba/Jeff Koterba

For more cartoons, visit www.newsday.com/0101nationalcartoons

Final Point

Big West Coast eruption rekindles LI battery-tech concerns

A major fire erupted Jan. 16 at the Moss Landing...

A major fire erupted Jan. 16 at the Moss Landing Power Plant, a battery energy storage facility about 77 miles south of San Francisco. Credit: AP

An important debate continues in different public forums on Long Island as to whether the technology of today’s lithium-ion battery storage facilities has progressed to the point where residential communities should feel safe having them nearby.

Concerns are now heightened in the wake of a massive fire that erupted Jan. 16 in Monterey County, California, in a large battery energy storage facility that caused evacuations and school closings in the area. It burned for five days, according to news reports, and firefighters faced difficulties handling it.

"I know green is good, but we’ve got to move slowly," Monterey County Supervisor Glenn Church told The Los Angeles Times. "What we’re doing with this technology is way ahead of government regulations and ahead of the industry’s ability to control it."

The fire earlier this month was the fourth at the Moss Landing location since 2019. Blazes at these facilities are more complicated to put out than conventional fires. Some California lawmakers are now moving in response to try to keep these sites farther away from residential areas in the future.

Here on Long Island, supporters of battery-storage projects planned and underway emphasize that the 300-megawatt battery array that burned in California is nearly a decade old — and that this region’s newer facilities will have significantly more stringent safety standards and alarm systems than those in Monterey.

By design, the battery modules at these sites will be isolated, separated and contained, they say, unlike Moss Landing. They would be tested for keeping an intense overheating of cells from spreading by what’s technically known as thermal runaway — the big threat in lithium-ion device fires. New state standards are expected to be approved later in the year.

But Doug Augenthaler, a Glen Head resident with a background in financial analysis in the environmental sector, makes several points about what he believes the California fire reinforces.

There was a widely reported failure of the fire suppression system. It generally remains a quandary "how to avoid or confront these fires," according to Augenthaler. "There is no question that experiments must be made, but performing those experiments in heavily populated areas is madness," Augenthaler said in an email to the editorial board.

Augenthaler’s prime argument regarding a proposed 275-megawatt Glenwood Landing facility and others has been that in converting to green energy it’s wise to wait for the perfection of less risky options in development, such as solid-state batteries that don’t use a flammable liquid.

In practical political terms, in which informed public opinion is key, the glaring images and reports of the Moss Landing fire are highly unlikely to help promote lithium-ion facilities.

One longtime government-relations professional, who preferred anonymity and isn’t involved in the energy business, told The Point on Tuesday that as a basic rule: "If a question is out there and it is not answered as clearly as possible, it will be a Sisyphean task convincing the public you can operate a safe facility."

— Dan Janison dan.janison@newsday.com

Subscribe to The Point here and browse past editions of The Point here.

SUBSCRIBE

Unlimited Digital AccessOnly 25¢for 6 months

ACT NOWSALE ENDS SOON | CANCEL ANYTIME