Pa. high court stops closure of health centers |

Pa. high court stops closure of health centers

The Associated Press

HARRISBURG — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a union that represents nurses and put a halt to plans by the Corbett administration to close more than a third of the state’s county-based health centers.

The court ordered the administration to stop eliminating the centers, reopen those that have been shuttered and restore the level of public health services to 1995 levels.

The majority opinion, by Justice Max Baer, said the Legislature never changed a mandate in a 1996 law that the state maintain the number of health centers it had as of July 1995, when it operated 60 of them.

“While the executive branch contends that its proposed modernization plan is more cost-efficient and better serves the citizens of the commonwealth, it is not for this court to opine on that policy determination,” Baer wrote.

Gov. Tom Corbett’s administration began to close 26 centers and reorganize public health services last year as a cost-saving budget move designed to increase efficiency.

Service Employees International Union Vice President Kevin Hefty said the state had closed some of the 26 — he wasn’t sure how many — and nurses were laid off or reassigned to other areas. He said it appears those positions will have to be restored.

“These centers provide valuable public health services to the community,” Hefty said. “They’re located in nearly every county in the commonwealth. And by closing 26 of them, those counties did not have a place to go to get their public health questions answered.”

Health Department spokeswoman Aimee Tysarczyk said the decision is being reviewed “to determine the implications to the plan moving forward,” and said officials will provide details to agency staff and the public once that review is finished.

In a lone dissent, Justice Michael Eakin said the 1996 law did not preclude closing centers, but rather required the same level of health services to be maintained.

“Times change, and it cannot be that the Legislature meant to lock the state into a series of locations in perpetuity,” Eakin wrote. “There will always be demographic shifts, lease expirations, building closures, employee furloughs and transfers, and the advances of technology and treatment options that make change inevitable.”

Baer replied in a footnote that SEIU was not seeking to maintain the same locations, just the same number of centers.

Individual nurses, some Democratic state lawmakers and others joined SEIU in the lawsuit.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.