Editorial Roundup:

The Dallas Morning News. April 9, 2020

How did Dallas risk losing a critical federal hospital at the convention center? Here’s how

A failure to communicate between federal, state and local leaders could have proved fatal

One of the worst things that could happen to North Texas right now would be the loss of the pop-up hospital that the federal government is placing at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center.

But that is what was at risk this week because of a failure among federal, state and local leaders to adequately communicate about what steps Dallas County needed to take to ensure the facility remained in the city.

Thursday morning, the Dallas County Commissioners Court held an emergency meeting to approve two large contracts in support of operating the 250-bed hospital.

We hope that satisfies federal officials who were considering removing the hospital from Dallas and relocating the resources that come with it elsewhere in the country.

As late as Wednesday afternoon, Nim Kidd, the chief of the Texas Department of Emergency Management, told us the hospital was at risk if Dallas County did not act quickly.

This whole mess makes it critical to understand, after the fact, exactly what happened between Gov. Greg Abbott and County Judge Clay Jenkins in this whole affair. The public was looped in late last week, after Abbott’s chief of staff warned Jenkins to take action to ensure the hospital remained in Dallas.

That warning, in a letter, went public, and it revealed a massive break in communication between the governor and Jenkins in a time when we need them more than ever to be on the same page. And it happened at a time when the feds were threatening to pull the popup hospital.

This is too serious to chalk up as a political fight. If there is ever a time for that sort of nonsense, this isn’t it.

The timeline of what happened here is important - and it begins with Maj. Gen. Mike Stone, the Army official overseeing the set up in this region of what are officially known as federal medical stations.

Late last week, Stone spoke with county and city officials, including Jenkins, and came away with the conclusion that the county was not taking adequate steps to open and use the medical station at the convention center.

On Saturday night, Stone was in New Orleans managing the set up of emergency services there. He called Kidd to express concern about what was happening in Dallas.

It was late, and Stone got Kidd’s voicemail.

“Hey chief, sorry to bug you on a Saturday night,” Stone said in the message.

“Late last night, we had a call with Judge Clay Jenkins. His team and his Ph.D.s have no intentions of moving patients into the convention center and the Department of Defense is confused. So I’ll SITREP up, situation report up, my chain of command about getting equipment and patients moving in Dallas.”

Kidd heard the message the following morning and was alarmed. He sent it to Jenkins and to Mayor Eric Johnson and quickly had Jenkins on the phone.

During that conversation, Kidd said, he also became worried that Jenkins didn’t have a clear plan of how and when the hospital would be used. Given the scarcity of federal resources, Kidd believed the hospital could be moved, he said.

As of Wednesday afternoon, he was still worried.

After he spoke to Jenkins, Kidd immediately contacted the governor’s office to say he feared Dallas would lose the facility, he said. He believed it was his job to do all he could to ensure Dallas kept the hospital.

“If Dallas County can’t get this together, I’m going to fight like hell to keep it there,” he said.

But he also understood the federal government’s position. Resources are needed everywhere. If it isn’t clear they are going to be used, the feds will move them, Kidd said.

Kidd stressed that he has worked in emergency management for many years under both Republicans and Democrats and that he isn’t interested in partisan struggles. Indeed, Kidd was the top emergency management official in San Antonio under Julian Castro when Castro, former Democratic HUD secretary, was mayor of that city.

After Kidd reported to Abbott’s office, the governor’s chief of staff, Luis Saenz, wrote Jenkins expressing concerns that Dallas could lose the federal medical station - a station that includes the services of Naval medical personnel as well as equipment supplied by the federal government.

“Other jurisdictions need quick access to the facilities currently set up in Dallas,” Saenz wrote. “If I don’t hear from you by tomorrow, the process may quickly begin to move this additional hospital capacity away from Dallas.”

Jenkins called it “a crazy letter” that was “essentially untrue.”

But the letter wasn’t crazy or untrue. It accurately expressed what Stone had told Kidd and what Kidd had reported to the governor’s office.

Based on the timeline, it is easy to understand why Abbott’s office was so concerned about what might happen to the medical station at the convention center and why it was appropriate to contact Jenkins in a formal way to clarify the county’s intended use for the convention center.

It’s also understandable that, from Jenkins’ perspective, the county was doing all it could to get the hospital ready to be opened but to not transfer patients there until hospital capacity became strained.

What’s important to remember here is that every Texas and county official has the same goal - keep the facility in Dallas.

What we needed was a coordinated local and state response to the federal government to ensure that is what happens. But there was a breakdown. It’s clear that Abbott and Jenkins weren’t communicating. At least not in productive ways that would ensure the county kept the hospital.

That has to change - communication must be regular and political differences must be set aside. This isn’t the time for social media lobbying or agenda pushing or public sniping. We get enough of that in ordinary times, and it doesn’t make for good leadership then either.

It’s time now for both leaders to work together to make certain this critical resource stays in Dallas during this crisis and that future problems are resolved before they become critical.

___

Austin American-Statesman. April 8, 2020

Jail measures to fight virus show promise

The drop has been dramatic.

In just a few weeks, the population at the Travis County jail has fallen 26%, from 2,213 inmates in mid-March to 1,626 on Wednesday. And the number of new inmates being booked into the jail has plummeted 44%, from an average of 107 a day in the first half of March to 60 a day in the latter part of the month.

Acting decisively to reduce the risk of a coronavirus outbreak at the jail, Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, District Attorney Margaret Moore, and numerous judges and law enforcement officers have shown it’s possible to curb unnecessary jail stays without compromising public safety. We urge them to continue some of these efforts long after the COVID-19 threat passes.

Jails and prisons remain worrisome spots for coronavirus outbreaks. Inmates share cells and common areas that make social distancing difficult. Guards and inmates come and go every day, providing opportunities for the virus to hitch a ride into the facility.

Hernandez and her staff deserve credit for a muscular, multipronged effort, including temporarily suspending in-person visits and isolating all new inmates for 10-14 days to ensure they are symptom-free before they can interact with others.

The sheriff has also converted visitation areas and programming spaces into eight virtual courtrooms, allowing inmates to attend some court appearances through video conferencing. Working with judges and prosecutors, this setup has allowed people facing nonviolent charges to quickly obtain release from jail while awaiting trial - a practice we hope officials will continue after the pandemic wanes.

Likewise, law enforcement officers should continue to issue citations instead of arrests whenever possible, another step Hernandez urged and we have long supported.

So far the jail has not had a confirmed case of coronavirus, and officials are working hard to keep it that way. Soap and hand sanitizer remain freely available, and inmates this week started sewing cloth masks they can wear if they choose.

The jail isn’t an island: An outbreak there could easily spread to the community as staffers and inmates come home. Efforts to reduce the jail population help keep all of us safe - and provide a path for reducing unnecessary jail stays altogether, pandemic or not.

___

El Paso Times. April 8, 2020

At this critical time, how can Texas keep refusing Medicaid expansion?

Now, during the coronavirus pandemic, is a good time to remind you that Texas is one of 14 states saying no to billions in federal dollars because it won’t expand Medicaid coverage.

Now is also a good time to point out a few other things while this pandemic makes more and more Texans eligible for benefits if Medicaid were expanded:

Texas is the state with the largest uninsured population — about 5 million of our people. We’re the second-largest state, which begs the question why we have more uninsured than California, the largest. (Answer: We’re notoriously stingy with state funding for health care.)

More than 1.5 million Texans would become eligible if Texas were to expand Medicaid. That number may expand in a hurry with so many people out of work right now.

By 2024, we Texans will have paid $36.2 billion in federal taxes that will go to other states, assuming our elected officials continue to refuse Medicaid expansion. Ask yourself how you feel about supporting the health care expenses of Massachusetts but not Texas.

A study released last year by the University of Michigan estimated that 730 Texans die each year because Texas hasn’t expanded Medicaid.

It’s estimated that Texas is saying no to $100 billion — billion with a “b” — in a decade’s span.

HOW CAN WE CHANGE THIS?

Gov. Greg Abbott has the authority to do it unilaterally, as did his predecessor, Rick Perry. The expansion program started in 2014 and Abbott has been governor since 2015. It also could be done by the Legislature. Attempts thus far have failed.

WHY SAY NO TO BILLIONS?

Perry refused expanded Medicaid, saying the entire Medicaid program was unsustainable. You could say that about any number of government programs and services, including the defense budget. We could try doing without them and see how sustainable that turns out. Abbott said the federal government was being “coercive” trying to force Medicaid expansion upon Texas.

But if you want to know their real reason, look no further than whose plan it was — President Barack Obama’s. That name alone was enough for them to oppose it with every fiber of their beings, despite the guaranteed losses of life that these two pro-life politicians had to have seen coming.

CAN ABBOTT BE CONVINCED?

We are trying to be optimistic. It’s why we broached the subject in the first place — because we think coronavirus is the tipping point. We worry what it’ll do to the uninsured poor people who don’t qualify for Medicaid if Texas doesn’t take the expansion. They are at huge risk because they avoid doctor visits they can’t afford and because they’re willing to risk exposure to keep their low-paying jobs.

We’re also curious, and frightened, about how the University of Michigan would recalculate its 730-deaths estimate to account for coronavirus.

We’d like to think that Abbott would swallow his pride to save lives and that he’d act quickly, since coronavirus already is here killing Texans.

But that’s a lot of pride to swallow. When Abbott was attorney general, he took the lead in the lawsuit by Republican-led states against the federal government, winning states’ rights to refuse Medicaid expansion. It happened at the Supreme Court level in 2012 and could be considered Abbott’s crowning achievement as a lawyer.

So you can see how significant an about-face it would be for Abbott to accept Medicaid expansion. It would be up there with Jesse Helms’ reversal of his stance against funding programs to combat AIDS after Bono lobbied him. (Willie Nelson, are you listening?)

In other words, it’s unlikely but possible.

___