We would appreciate a full report on this urgent matter, prior to any final decision on the study which is being made, particularly as it relates to the Public Health Service Hospital in Baltimore. Sincerely, Joseph D. Tydings, U.S. Senator, Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., U.S. Hon. EDWARD GARMATZ, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C., December 22, 1970. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to the hearings you are holding today relating to the proposed closing of Public Health facilities throughout the United States. I am concerned that the proposed action may be ill-advised. This Committee has received no information whatsoever on the proposed closures although I have heard reports that many of the Public Health hospital beneficiaries will be treated on a contract basis in Veterans Administration hospitals. Many of the affected VA hospitals are presently operating at peak levels based on their present staffing and funding allocations and, under present circumstances. it would be extremely difficult for these VA hospitals to assume additional workloads. In view of the fact that no official information has been received to enable us to make a judgment on the impact of these proposed closings on the VA hospital system, I have contacted the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Administrator of Veterans Affairs requesting that any decision relating to closing Public Health hospitals and clinics be held in abeyance until some information can be provided and evaluated as to what affect this proposed closing order would have on the VA hospital system. Sincerely, OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman. PETITION SENT TO THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC OFFICIALS DATED DECEMBER 28, 1970 The Honorable Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States The Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, Chairman, Merchant Marine Committee, House of Representatives The Hon. Harley O. Staggers, Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, House of Representatives The Hon. Alan Cranston, Member, U. S. Senate The Hon. John Tunney, Member, U. S. Senate The Hon. Warren G. Magnuson, Member, U. S. Senate The Hon. Paul G. Rogers, Member, House of Representatives The Hon. Phillip Burton, Member, House of Representatives The Hon. William S. Mailliard, House of Representatives * * * * * We, the undersigned, being Commissioned Officers and employees of the U.S. Public Health Service, protest the proposed closing of the Public Health Service Hospitals. We urge you to do everything within your power to forestall or prevent this closure. We believe the Public Health Service Hospital system has benefits to offer the community in terms of comprehensive health and mental health care, delivery and evaluation. The U.S. Public Health Service has been serving its beneficiaries since 1798. Terminating this system would be detrimental in its effect on employment and welfare costs. (Committee Note: Several hundred names were attached to the above petition.) Hon. EDWARD GARMATZ, GALVESTON, TEX., December 25, 1970. HONORABLE CONGRESSMAN: I read in the local paper today, that you had called a special session, next Tuesday, December 29th, of the House Merchant Marine Fisheries Committee, to discuss the possibility of closing Public Health Service Hospitals. I wish to protest the HEW request very vigorously, as the services which these hospitals render are irreplaceable. My opinion is based on the activities of our local USPHS; this hospital has 160 beds which are occupied continuously, in fact I have had friends amongst seamen, who have had to wait three to four weeks, to be admitted account shortage of beds. Instead of requesting to close this hospital the HEW should use their influence to get a appropriation approved to construct a New and Larger USPHS. The land, in the Medical Center has already been donated, the Plans for a New Hospital approved. The only reason Why this hospital is not under construction, is the President's order to curtail All Federal Construction. I would to call to the Committee's attention the Outpatient Clinic which takes care of the servicemen families, whose Father is abroad in the service of our Country. This is our Country obligation, so if the hospital is closed, these families sooner or later, will experience hardships as the local hospitals, will not be able to give medical attention as they are accustomed because the Medical outpatient clinic at the Center is already carrying a heavy load. Another valuable point why our local USPHS hospital should remain open is the research material, which the University of Texas Medical School is able to obtain, due to the fact, that quite often a rare disease contracted by a seaman in a foreign country, is admitted to the USPHS. This is understandable as seaman are in global travel. The HEW should divert their activities to other fields of services and leave the USPHS alone as they are rendering a wonderful service, not only to the seaman but also to the servicemen families. In my opinion the HEW should scrutinize the welfare rolls, of all the States, with a finecomb as there is no doubt, in my mind, there are many citizens, on this roll, which should be eliminated, because they are satisfied with a government check, instead of earning a living for their families. I realize there are a number of poverty Welfare cases, in this country but they are in the minority. I am cognizable with the President's program, as regards to curtailing the inflation by reducing Federal spending but it is beyond my comprehension to understand why HEW wants to jeopardize the health of seamen, families of our servicemen, also, wonderful research being accomplished by the University of Texas Medical School. There would be a considerable increase in the cities unemployment, if the hospital is closed. I remember an old adage, my parents use to say, many years ago, that went like this: "As long as you have health, you can always get along, in this world." The HEW, in their request, are putting welfare and other fields of services above health, which will be a big mistake, if their request is approved. I, in the interest of the seaman and servicemen families, will appreciate all of the help you can render to my cause and trust that you will be able to influence the Committee to deny the HEW request. Yours very truly, E. D. QUIN. VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION CENTER, Hon. WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., House of Representatives, DEAR SENATOR SPONG: Please refer to your recent letter regarding the facilities that we have available at this Center. We do not have a Renal Service at our hospital. In the event that a patient required Intensive Renal Care it would be necessary to transfer him to the Veterans Administration Hospital, Richmond, Virginia. Care for coronary patients is provided at this Center in our regular Medical Intensive Care Unit. This is a small Unit of 5 beds with portable equipment. This Unit has a nurse in attendance constantly. The Unit has to be shared with acutely ill medical patients of all types. When acutely ill medical patients no longer require constant nursing supervision they are moved to one of the 122 beds elsewhere on the Medical Service. These consist of a few private rooms and the remainder are in rooms containing 6 to 11 beds in each room. We trust that the above data wil be sufficient for your needs. Sincerely, A. W. STRATTON, Director. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION MASTERS, MATES & PILOTS, LOCAL No. 17, Portland, Oreg., December 29, 1970. Re Public Health Service. DEAR SIR: It has been brought to the attention of this office that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare request for funds to continue at least the present level of service being rendered by the U.S. Public Health be drastically reduced. This reduction of services we have been informed is the proposed closure of the Outpatient Clinic in Portland including the Dental Clinic and cancellation of medical services contracted by the Public Health Service to individual Doctors in our Coastal Ports. The service presently rendered by the Public Health was originally for the exclusive use of the U.S. Seaman, and foreign seaman, wherever they were in American Ports. The Public Health Service over the years, has been extended by Presidential and Congressional action to include all branches of the Armed Services, including dependents, but not the Seamans dependents. The Closure of these Clinics and possible closure of Public Health Hospitals and elimination of Outport Doctors services would mean, that he, the Seaman would have no place to go for qualified help when he needs it. The Congress has recently authorized the rebuilding of our Merchant Fleet by appropriating the needed money, but at the same time to take away a part of the Seamans heritage we believe is not right. We therefore respectfully ask, that you, our Congressional Representative vote not to take away this heritage from our Seaman. Sincerely yours, CAPT. DALE KINNEY, Secretary-Business Manager. FISHERMEN & ALLIED WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 33 I.L.W.U., San Diego, Calif., January 8, 1971. Hon. GLENN ANDERSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON: We compliment you for taking the initiative in opposing President Nixon's proposal to close down the United States Public Health Outpatient Clinic in San Pedro, California. Our organization vehemently opposes such a move, and we would appreciate your continued support on this matter. As you know, this San Pedro U.S. Public Health Outpatient medical facility is the only one available to our seamen and commercial fishermen in the Los Angeles area. It provides irreplaceable and incomparable health services in the form of preventive medicine besides its normal health care; it provides dental and eye care also which are both available to our fishermen. It is, moreover, centrally located in the area of the Port of Los Angeles, and is conveniently placed among the homes and residences of our men who ply the high seas all year long. U.S. Public Health care for the seafarer is a matter of simple social justice in the light of the unique relation he holds to his vessel, which is one of personal indenture; the dispensation or the distribution of health care to the seafarer by its "ward," the Federal Government, is based upon the historical tenets of necessity in order to protect him from being overreached by masters and shipowners. We do not want to lose this principle of "wardship." The beneficent attitude of our country and its people toward our seafarers was ably put by Justice Story when he set forth the underlying principles impelling the nation to that attitude. These were: (1) The protection of seamen who, as a class, are considered improvident from the hazards of illness and abandonment while ill; (2) The inducement to masters and owners to protect health and safety of seamen while in the merchant service; (3) The maintenance of a merchant marine and a fishing fleet for the furtherance of foreign trade in time of peace and as an arm of defense in time of war: and (4) By inducing seamen to accept employment in an arduous and perilous service. Every maritime nation has underwritten the health and welfare of its seafarers in this humanitarian and protective spirit. In fact, our nation from its earliest period of national existence has faithfully recognized the value of its men of the sea and their calling in this social context. The U.S. Public Health Outpatient Clinic in the Port of Los Angeles, San Pedro, California has made in the past, and is still making a benevolent, humane and vital contribution to the health and welfare of our seafarers and fishermen in the whole Los Angeles complex. We hope that it will be allowed to continue. It makes seafaring and fishing not only a socially useful calling but also a safe one! May we, therefore, respectfully urge you to continue to fight, in your forthright fashion, for this vital and meaningful social service. Respectfully yours, JOHN J. ROYAL, Secretary-Treasurer. BALTIMORE, MD., Re USPHS hospitals. To: Maryland congressional delegation. As both a private citizen and as a commissioned officer in the USPHS Corps I am outraged by the news of the possible closing of the PHS hospitals and clinics. The eight hospitals and almost thirty clinics are responsible for the care of 535.000 people (newspaper statistic) and together total almost 2,500 inpatient beds: This is not to mention the loss of jobs for thousands of employees (many of whom are minority groups) and about 800 plus physicians. First of all, I do not believe that this is an economy move because the government is still responsible for the care of these beneficiaries and must finance their care through the VA Hospitals and private hospitals. I am sure careful exam will show the VA costs to be comparable to those of the PHS. Plus the fact that the VA does not offer pediatrics or obstetrics-gynecology services as most PHS hospitals do. I also question whether the VA can absorb this tremendous increase in patient load? An article in Life within the last year vividly describes some of the gross shortcomings of some of our VA facilities. Why even here in Baltimore the local VA hospital sends all of their patients requiring nuclear medicine studies to our Baltimore PHS Hospital. The PHS has accepted new doctors to start their residency training program in July of 1971 and is committed to fulfill this obligation. There are also some 180 residents currently in the PHS who have chosen to serve with these eight hospitals and should they close these doctors would have no place to go for a year or two because civilian hospitals are full for 1971 and some even have no staff openings in July of 1972!!!! Our Baltimore hospital has a staff of almost 700 people including 130 doctors. The hospital has the Baltimore branch of the National Cancer Institute, a school for medical librarians (the only one in the state and one which produces 8% of all medical librarians in the USA), programs coordinated with local schools for the training of nurses, medical students, and some para-medical personnel, a Health Services Research Center which is operating an experimental multi-phasic screening clinic, an internship program, a residency program in radiology, internal medicine, general surgery, pathology, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, and preventive medicine, and a proposed program which would make the hospital the prime treatment facility for some 6,000 residents of the Homewood-Montebello area who are without doctors in their neighborhood to properly care for them. The USPHS has a fine tradition and its division of hospitals and clinics is an integral part of the entire program. The hospitals have always been one way of attracting career PIIS officers and has also trained thousands of young doctors who chose to return to civilian life. In these current times when there is a shortage of well-trained doctors and a lack of hospital beds, any decision to close the PHS Hospitals would be morally and medically irresponsible!!! Baltimore needs its PHS hospital. It takes care of some 25,000 plus beneficiaries (BEC, DOD, CG, and American Seamen) and in the last year was responsible for 4,200 admissions and over 100.000 outpatient visits. Please do whatever is necessary not only to guarantee the continued opening of these hospitals but also the vital funds needed for maintenance and improvement. Thank you for your efforts and enthusiasm in this matter. Yours truly, JOSEPH R. MARTIRE, M.D. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., January 8, 1971. . Hon EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN GARMATZ: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 5, 1971, urging that letters be sent to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare emphasizing that this is not the time to be closing Public Health Service Clinics. I fully agree with your position in opposition to the Secretary of HEW. We do need more energy expended toward improving, modernizing and enlarging our hospitals and clinics, rather than closing them. Alaska is in dire need of additional facilities, and not less than what we have today. Thank you for calling this matter to my attention. Attached is my letter to the Secretary of the Health, Education and Welfare Department. Sincerely, NICK BEGICH. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., January 8, 1971. Hon. ELLIOT RICHARDSON, Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, DEAR SECRETARY RICHARDSON: I have recently been informed that your Department has under consideration a proposal to close some Public Service Hospitals and clinics and that one of the clinics is in Alaska. Could you please inform me if this proposal is, indeed, under consideration? As you must know, Alaska is heavily dependent on these Public Service Hospitals and clinics because of our native population and the many rural areas |