Judge approves plan to close hospital system in Delaware County
(Getty Images)
Questions swirled in a Texas courtroom Tuesday about the ongoing treatment of patients in a pair of suburban Philadelphia hospitals that are slated to close after their bankrupt owner abandoned plans to transfer them to another hospital system.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stacey Jernigan approved Prospect Medical Holdings' plan to begin turning new patients away in Delaware County on Wednesday and to stop providing most services by Friday.
The emergency departments at Crozer Chester Medical Center in Upland and Taylor Hospital in Ridley Park will stop receiving patients by ambulance but walk-in patients will be accepted for up to a week.
In a hearing on the request, lawyers for a nurses union asked for assurance that the company would pay wages and pension contributions owed since Prospect filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January.
Another lawyer representing several Delaware County municipalities and the school district where one of the hospitals is located argued that the company had not given the required notice that it would stop providing emergency medical and ambulance services.
'Closing a hospital system of this size is an absolute massive undertaking, and as you would expect, there is chaos, especially given that staff and patients in the community really believed that there would be a hero … stepping up,' Patient Safety Ombudsman Suzanne Koenig testified, adding that the staff remain dedicated to ensuring an orderly transfer of longer-term patients to other facilities.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Prospect has owned Crozer Health System since 2016 and closed two of its four hospitals in recent years as the California-based parent company faced financial peril. On Monday, it notified more than 2,600 employees that it would close its remaining two hospitals. It is one of the largest employers in the county.
Attorney William Curtin, who represents Prospect in the bankruptcy case, said company officials worked tirelessly with the assistance of the Pennsylvania attorney general's office to work out a deal to give the hospitals to a new owner in exchange for assuming their liabilities.
'At the end of the day, your honor, it came down to funding, and there just wasn't funding there to support a transition or to support a long term future for these hospitals,' Curtin said.
Pennsylvania and the philanthropic organization The Foundation for Delaware County provided more than $40 million in funding to allow the hospitals to continue operations as Prospect negotiated with the University of Pennsylvania to acquire the hospitals.
While Penn offered to inject an additional $5 million for the purchase of certain assets and assumption of leases, it would have also added to Prospect's debt and the money would not be available until the deal was closed, Curtin said.
'So essentially, the $5 million was going to be too late, and it was unfortunately going to be a bridge to nowhere, because there was … nowhere to go,' he said.
In response to Prospect's announcement Monday, Delaware County issued an emergency declaration that provides greater flexibility in hiring, procurement, emergency medical services dispatch, and in tracking and potentially recouping expenses related to the ongoing hospital closures. The county filed a motion opposing approval of the closure plan.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'To be clear, Delaware County is extremely disappointed in this outcome, and in the actions of Prospect in every step of this process,' county officials said in a statement.
Previously owned by Los Angeles-based private equity firm Leonard Green & Partners, Prospect was saddled with $1.3 billion debt as its owners took more than $645 million in dividends and fees, according to ProPublica.
Nicole Stallings, president and CEO of the Hospital + Health System Association of Pennsylvania, said that while it is unfortunate that no agreement was reached to allow Crozer to continue operating, hospitals are 'consistently called upon to help when access to care is in crisis' and 'will undoubtedly step up and take care of those in need regardless of ability to pay.'
She noted that half of the commonwealth's acute care hospitals operate at a loss, according to the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Cost Containment Council. Crozer Health System was losing $12 million a month, according to Prospect.
Stallings said the association is ready to work with policymakers and payors to address the underlying challenges pressuring hospitals and protect Pennsylvanians' access to care.
The closures will leave Delaware County, with 576,000 people, only two hospitals. It is the fifth most populous county in the commonwealth.
Andrew Costa Kelser, who represents the Philadelphia area health care pension fund and the local affiliate of the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, questioned Chief Restructuring Officer Paul Rundell about wages and pension payments.
'I think our first priority right now is patient safety, and we're focusing on that. And so as I sit here today, I can't answer anything other than focusing on patient safety issues,' Rundell said.
While Judge Jernigan denied the union's motion for additional language in the closure plan to assure the payments, she said the question remains a 'giant issue' in the resolution of the bankruptcy.
'There's going to be hell to pay if people don't get paid their post-petition wages and pension obligations,' Jernigan said. 'I've gotten assurances from the debtor that these employees will get paid their wages or their salaries as long as they continue to work.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
26 minutes ago
- Axios
Amid backlash, Tesla remained resilient in Texas
Even as Tesla deliveries plunged nationally this year amid Elon Musk's very visible (if short-lived) alliance with President Trump, there was at least one state where Tesla registrations were up: Texas. Why it matters: The registration data, obtained by Axios through public information requests, indicates loyalty to the brand in its home base, including Texas' large urban and suburban counties. The depth of conservatives' enthusiasm for Musk's automobiles now faces a major test amid the absolute meltdown last week between the Tesla CEO and the president. By the numbers: Texans registered 12,918 new Teslas in the first three months of 2025, a period when Musk, who contributed more than $250 million to a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2024 election campaign, was enmeshed in the Trump administration as the overseer of DOGE, the president's cost-cutting initiative. Over the same period in 2024, Texans registered 10,679 Teslas. That's a 21% increase year over year. The intrigue: The spike in Texas registrations came as Tesla was flailing elsewhere. Tesla's vehicle deliveries plunged 13% globally in the first quarter of 2025 (336,681 electric vehicles) compared with Q1 2024 (386,810). Tesla vehicles were torched at showrooms and the brand's reputation cratered. Zoom in: Tesla saw year-over-year improvements in its sales in some of the most populous Texas counties. In Travis County, new Tesla registrations grew from 1,369 in the first quarter of 2024 to 1,424 during the first quarter of 2025. In Harris County, they grew from 1,526 to 1,837 during the same period. Tesla registration grew from 1,316 to 1,546 in Collin County and from 990 to 1,146 in Dallas County. In Bexar County, registrations grew from 631 to 664. What they're saying:"It's homegrown pride," is how Matt Holm, president and founder of the Tesla Owners Club of Austin, explains the car company's resilience to Axios. "And regardless of all the drama going on these days, people can differentiate between the product and everything else going on, and it's just a great product." "Elon has absolutely and irreversibly blown up bridges to some potential customers," says Alexander Edwards, president of California-based research firm Strategic Vision, which has long surveyed the motivations of car buyers. "People who bought Teslas for environmental friendliness, that's pretty much gone," Edwards tells Axios. Yes, but: The company had been enjoying an increasingly positive reputation among more conservative consumers. Musk was viewed favorably by 80% of Texas Republicans polled by the Texas Politics Project in April — and unfavorably by 83% of Democrats. In what now feels like a political lifetime ago, Trump himself even promoted Teslas by promising to buy one in support of Musk earlier this year. "In some pockets, like Austin, you have that tech group that loves what Tesla has to offer, can do some mental gymnastics about Musk, and looks at Rivian and says that's not what I want or might be priced out," Edwards says. Between the lines:"Being in the state of Texas, you're naturally conditioned to think you're better than everyone else in the U.S. And when you buy a Tesla" — a status symbol — "that's what you're saying. It doesn't surprise me that there's an increase in sales" in Texas, Edwards says. Plus: Tesla's resilience in Texas could have practical reasons as well, Edwards says. Texas homes — as opposed to, say, apartments in cities on the East Coast — are more likely to have a garage to charge a car in, he adds. What's next: Musk said late last month that Tesla was experiencing a "major rebound in demand" — without providing specifics. But that was before things went absolutely haywire with Trump and Tesla stock took a bath last week.
Washington Post
28 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Motorcar Parts: Fiscal Q4 Earnings Snapshot
TORRANCE, Calif. — TORRANCE, Calif. — Motorcar Parts of America Inc. (MPAA) on Monday reported a loss of $722,000 in its fiscal fourth quarter. The Torrance, California-based company said it had a loss of 4 cents per share. Earnings, adjusted for one-time gains and costs, came to 28 cents per share. The maker of remanufactured vehicle alternators and starters posted revenue of $193.1 million in the period. For the year, the company reported a loss of $19.5 million, or 99 cents per share. Revenue was reported as $757.4 million. Motorcar Parts expects full-year revenue in the range of $780 million to $800 million. _____ This story was generated by Automated Insights ( using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on MPAA at
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Big Data Can Make America Healthier. How to Do It Right
Credit - Ezra Bailey—Getty Images Big data can help make Americans healthier, and the Trump Administration has stated—in its recently released Make America Healthy Again report and elsewhere—that building a national big-data platform is one of its primary goals. As scientists who use large data sets to study health, we're excited about its potential and the willingness of the federal government to invest in it, particularly since big data has been underutilized in the U.S. compared with other developed countries—and since the number of ways it can be used grows nearly daily. It's a huge opportunity. But there are lots of concerns when assembling sensitive health data and combining it with other sensitive data, like credit scores, tax records, employment, educational records, and more. Some of those concerns with the Administration's plans have already surfaced. The Administration's first goal of assembling big data to studying autism has left some worried that if used inappropriately, such data could lead to harm, rather than help, for those with autism. Others worry that big data could be used to perform and justify shoddy research that supports predetermined conclusions without adhering to rigorous scientific methods—a concern reinforced by the discovery that the Make America Healthy Again report cited non-existent sources to support its claims. So how can we reap the benefits of big data while minimizing its risks? Here are some guiding principles: The health care system already possesses health data on millions of Americans. Medical records are now almost always digitized, permitting doctors' notes, medical imaging, laboratory tests, insurance claims, and more to be linked (in theory) across doctors' offices, hospitals, nursing homes, and any other place people receive care. However, data collected about a patient in one setting often doesn't get connected to data from other settings—making it hard for researchers to get a full picture of what, exactly, is happening to each of us within the larger health care system. Read More: Gun Injuries of All Kinds Go Up During Hunting Season The federal government also has data on us that can be connected to health care data to answer important questions. For example, comprehensive and detailed data on Americans' occupations linked with health, insurance, and other data could help shed more light on relationships between our work and our health—helping to better answer curious questions like why taxi drivers are less likely to die from Alzheimer's disease or why female physicians don't outlive their male colleagues. The first step of making big data more helpful is to simply link the data—which, while possible, is difficult to accomplish without centralized effort. Once linkages have been made, data can be anonymized so that those studying sensitive questions aren't privy to confidential information about specific individuals. In addition to governmental data, many other sources of data can provide insights into our health. For example, smartwatches not only have data on how our hearts are beating (e.g., they can identify abnormal heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation), but they can also identify subtle changes in mobility that might be predictive of early neuromuscular diseases like Parkinson's disease. Meanwhile, grocery stores have data on the foods we eat, and with increasing interest in how diet affects our lives, these data could be linked to detailed measures of health. Read More: Could the Shingles Vaccine Help Prevent Dementia? Similarly, social-media platforms possess data that can offer insights into changes in our mental health, and through large-scale analysis of online photos could even identify, in real time, early visible markers of disease. These are moonshots, of course, and whether we want to use data in this way is an open question. But the potential to improve health could be large. Creating a way for scientists to link outside data to existing government and health data—while responsibly maintaining individual anonymity after the linkage—could open many novel research opportunities. Keeping all of these data sources organized, secure, and accessible to scientists is a tall order. Researchers who use big data often dedicate substantial resources to finding the data they need, organizing it, and ensuring its accuracy; the better the database is maintained, the easier it is for researchers to actually perform their analyses. The secure online platform where Medicare and other government health care data are currently accessed has been described by researchers as 'tedious and prone to system errors' and in need of major improvements. Meanwhile, security concerns have led the government to stop letting researchers store the data on their own secure servers, the easiest and most cost-effective way to actually work with the data. Access to Medicare data by researchers has become prohibitively expensive, costing about $30,000 a year or more for a single user to work on one project using the online platform. Read More: Why We Can't Rely on Science Alone to Make Public Health Decisions Proposals to drastically cut medical research funding have been reported, and if passed, these research funding cuts will come at the cost of discoveries to improve health that will never be made. High-quality research of any kind requires investment, whether it's in a biology lab under a microscope or working with data on powerful computers. A new data platform is only as valuable as researchers' ability to access it in a functional and cost-effective way. Any roadmap to designing a national data platform that links together health care and other sensitive data must consider the many valid concerns about collecting data in the U.S., including privacy concerns and how data will be used. The Pew Research Center finds that large majorities of Americans say they are concerned about how the government uses data collected about them (71%), while also admitting that they have little to no understanding of what the government even does with such data (77%). Here are some strategies—in addition to many of the cybersecurity and privacy safeguards already in place—to both protect the data and help earn the public trust: Mistrust and unease with government data collection is readily traceable to historical abuse of Americans' data (as well as recent allegations of improper access), so it's not surprising that many are wary of the Trump Administration's plans. Ensuring data cannot be weaponized by the government against individuals is perhaps the single biggest barrier to creating a useful database, but it can be done. Those currently using federal health care data must already undergo training and comply with very high data-security standards. Misuse of the data—such as even attempting to figure out the identity of an anonymous individual in the data—or failure to protect patient privacy can lead to criminal penalties. A platform of sensitive data without well-delineated restrictions on who can use it and what they can use it for is a recipe for problems. Other ongoing efforts by the Administration to compile data under the vague goal of 'increasing government efficiency' have been met with pushback and lawsuits from organizations concerned about data being used against members of the public. Current use of federal health data also requires researchers to provide the government detailed plans to justify the use of specific data. This allows the government to ensure that no more data than is needed to answer the specific question is provided to researchers. Read More: Why Do Taxi Drivers Have a Lower Risk of Alzheimer's? Researchers must also obtain ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board prior to accessing and analyzing data, a second checkpoint. These boards, which exist in light of egregious failures of medical research ethics in the 20th century, help ensure that analyses are designed to minimize risk to patients—even if it is only their data, and not their bodies, at risk. Transparency into who is using this sensitive data and what exactly they are doing with it can engender trust between researchers and the American public. Just like researchers already do for clinical trials, those accessing the data platform should specify their plans in advance, and those plans should be easily and publicly available. Transparency around which data were accessed and what computer code was used to analyze it not only promotes trust, but such data- and code-sharing practices among researchers make it easier to appraise the quality of the work, identify mistakes, and root out misconduct. We can only assume that Americans' unease with governmental data use stems from knowledge that, as with all powerful tools, linked data has the potential to be used in potentially harmful ways. But when in the hands of qualified scientists using rigorous scientific methods and privacy safeguards, a robust real-world data platform like this could lead to new discoveries about how all of us can lead healthier lives. Contact us at letters@
