Former State Fire Marshall Andy Neumann appeared before the Alpena Regional Medical Center Board of Trustees Tuesday night, to defend decisions he made that led to a temporary shutdown of the hospital’s Wound Healing & Hyberbaric Medicine Center.

The center was shutdown for almost 4 months while the hospital and state agencies tried to resolve differences regarding the classification of the occupancy of the building that houses the center.

The problems surfaced in early January, after a Michigan Office of Fire Safety inspector found what he believed were building and code violations.

Hospital officials and attorneys met with Neumann and state officials in March. It was at that meeting the state said the matter was being passed along to federal officials. The hospital asked Neumann to allow the facility to operate while the matter was pending. ARMC was asked to submit the request in writing. It did so and the request was promptly denied.

Not coincidentally, one day before a long-scheduled visit from Senator Carl Levin to dedicate the center, state and federal officials gave ARMC authority to reopen the facility.

Neumann is currently a candidate for the open 106th District State Representative seat. He faces challenger Peter Pettalia in the November general election.

BELOW IS AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELEASED BY ALPENA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ON THE MATTER....

Position Statement regarding Center for Wound Healing & Hyperbaric Medicine

The entire situation involving ARMC’s attempts to open the Center illustrates what can happen when state and federal regulators choose not to work cooperatively with health care institutions to provide much-needed services to residents of the areas the institutions serve.

The Center for Wound Healing and Hyperbaric Medicine is designed to serve (1) patients who have wounds that will not heal when treated by normal methods, and (2) patients who have experienced problems when diving in the Lake Huron federal diving sanctuary or who have experienced carbon monoxide poisoning. There is no facility like this closer than Marquette or Saginaw. Particularly for the latter group of patients, the distance may be the difference between life and death.

Before construction and occupancy of the Center, ARMC officials met with City of Alpena Building and Fire Inspectors and consulted with inspectors from the State of Michigan Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical offices. All gave their go-ahead for the planned conversion of the building that had served as a dialysis center to accommodate the services planned for the Center. ARMC officials believed in good faith, based on their reading of the applicable regulations and their reading of state publications, that no further submission of plans or approvals were necessary before the Center could open.

In early January, however, an inspector from the state Office of Fire Safety conducted the annual fire inspection for ARMC and noted that the building which housed the Center was not approved for occupancy because ARMC had not submitted plans in advance to the state Office of Fire Safety. The inspector also noted that the Center’s building would be classified as a “health care” occupancy, and not a “business” occupancy, as that office had earlier classified the dialysis center. Based on this position, the state concluded that ARMC should have submitted plans to the state and that ARMC would have to demonstrate how the Center satisfied the “health care” occupancy standards. On February 22, the state ordered the Center closed.

ARMC consulted with its architects and lawyers about the state’s position. Both advised ARMC that the definitions contained in both state and federal regulations meant that the Center should be considered a “business” occupancy, and that, therefore, the Center should be allowed to operate. ARMC, its lawyers and architects, met with state officials, including Mr. Neumann, the then-State Fire Marshal, in Lansing on March 4. During this meeting, the state officials present informed ARMC that, despite state publications, it should have submitted plans for the Center to the state. The state officials also informed ARMC that, despite the definitions contained in state and federal regulations defining “business” and “health care” occupancies, the state’s position was that the Center was a “health care” occupancy. The officials could not explain how they reached this conclusion. Finally, at the meeting, the state officials informed ARMC that the matter had been referred to the federal Center for Medicare and Medicare Services (known as CMS) in Chicago and was out of the state’s hands. ARMC officials pleaded with the state to allow the Center to operate, but serving only outpatients (individuals not inpatients at the hospital), so as to allow necessary services to be provided to at least some of those requiring these necessary health care treatments while ARMC and the state and federal officials sorted out the situation. The state officials asked that this request be placed in writing. ARMC’s lawyer promptly did so. The same state officials immediately rejected the request.

In an effort to satisfy the state’s concerns about certain safety features of the Center, which ARMC disputed, ARMC immediately submitted plans to alter the sprinkler system and the alarm system in accordance with the state’s demands. This was accomplished within days after the early March meeting. ARMC sought the assistance of Mr. Neumann in obtaining approval of these plans, and asked for his assistance in expediting the entire review process. In fairness, the Office of Fire Safety did promptly review and approve these minor changes to the sprinkler and alarm systems. No other kind of assistance was provided.

In the meantime, ARMC’s lawyers began dealing with the federal officials at CMS in Chicago. After long delays, ARMC’s lawyers were finally able to speak to the principal official in charge of this matter. She acknowledged that ARMC’s research into the state and federal regulations was “sound,” but concluded that the regulations were controlled by an “interpretative guideline” that made the “health care” standards applicable to the Center. In that same phone call, she suggested that ARMC should investigate whether it could satisfy a process by which it attempted to show that, even though the Center did not satisfy the precise “health care” occupancy standards, there were sufficient other protections in place to allow the Center to be allowed to operate. This was the first time any official, state or federal, had mentioned a willingness to look at the entire array of protections found at the Center to guard against any potential harm to patients.

ARMC promptly set about submitting paperwork to show that it had present at the Center “equivalent” protections to those formally contained in the “health care” occupancy standards. The CMS official informed ARMC that this paperwork should be submitted to the state fire safety office for its recommendation. ARMC did so. The Office of Fire Safety recommended their approval, which CMS ultimately provided. At no time during the pendency of this entire matter had state officials suggested the “equivalency” process. Had they done so, six to ten weeks of delay could have been avoided. Finally, on June 13 – not coincidentally, one day before a long-scheduled visit from Senator Carl Levin to dedicate the Center – CMS and the state gave ARMC authority to open the Center.

If at any time earlier, state officials involved with the handling of this matter had suggested that they would consider the “equivalency” process, which they ultimately approved after a federal official suggested it, ARMC could have promptly complied, and the Center could have served patients who either went un-served, or who had to travel far outside the Alpena area to receive such services. Why this suggestion was never made by a state official remains a mystery.

This is the story of the difference between officials who look for a way to assist those trying to comply with complicated regulations and officials who seek only to find ways to disapprove attempts to comply. In this case, the patients who could have been served by these important treatments are the losers.