Those against the proposal testified that Advocate’s bottom-line business practices of charging uninsured patients exorbitant rates, engaging in predatory collections tactics, and anti-union behavior should not be rewarded with a permit to construct a new facility.

“A yes vote means yes to discriminatory pricing for the working poor, yes to aggressive collection tactics that ruin people’s lives and yes to bottom-line decisions that are only about money and profits for executives,” said the Rev. Dr. Isaac Singleton, Sr., senior pastor at Mount Zion Baptist Church in Joliet, and president of the Metropolitan Alliance of Congregations. “We want you to vote no and agree that residents in Tinley Park deserve affordable, accessible health care.”

Last fall, MAC sponsored the publication of an open-letter signed by over 100 pastors calling on Advocate to end charging uninsured patients higher prices.

Several victims of Advocate’s discriminatory pricing and predatory collections also raised their concerns about Advocate. “Advocate saved my life, but now the hospital collections agents are after me because I have an $80,000 hospital bill I cannot afford to pay,” said Isa Rafati, a resident of Tinley Park. “A hospital chain that treats patients like this does not deserve a permit for a new hospital.” Rafati was part of a delegation of patients who demonstrated in front of Advocate Christ Hospital March 4 where the group attempted to meet with the chief financial officer and submit charity care applications.

In the past year, Advocate Health Care not only has come under fire by religious, community and labor groups, but also governmental agencies. In Illinois, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the Illinois Joint Legislative Task Force for Immigrant and Refugees, the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, and the Chicago City Council have all scrutinized Advocate’s pricing and collection practices.

“Advocate’s price gouging and predatory collections practices fundamentally contradict its non-profit, charitable mission,” said Angela Lusk of the Hospital Accountability Project. “In exchange for generous tax breaks, Advocate is obligated to place the needs of patients and the community before financial considerations. Advocate does just the opposite—it prioritizes the bottom-line squeezing profits from patients and the community. This behavior should not be rewarded.”

Other groups testifying against the Advocate proposal included representatives of Epiphany United Church of Christ, Citizens Health Organization, ACORN, and the Lakeview Action Coalition.