Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science

SITE MAP I NEWS I EMPLOYMENT

News

The Charles R. Drew University Opts for Patient Safety Over Continued County Income

December 21, 2006 - In a strongly worded letter to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, The Charles R. Drew of Medicine and Science decided on Monday against entering into a modified agreement with the county health department to provide on-call and back-up physician coverage for the King/Harbor UCLA Medical Center, from December 1, 2006 to June 30th 2007.

In the December 18 letter, signed by Board Chair, Mr. Bart H. Williams, wrote, “Our goal in originally signing the agreement was to do all we could to assure the continuation of services for the people of South Los Angeles at the King / Harbor UCLA Medical Center, (formerly known as the King / Drew Medical Center or “KDMC”). However, upon further consultation with physician leadership at the University and others, it is clear that as a result of the County’s reconfiguration of …. the hospital (including, among other things, the discontinuation of residency training at the hospital), the University is not prepared to deliver or manage the clinical services that would be required under the proposed amendment.”

Williams noted that increasing numbers of county staff physicians are leaving or retiring, after the county unveiled its plan to eliminate their teaching responsibilities for residents at the former King/Drew Medical Center. “In short, we do not feel that we could recruit sufficient subspecialty support from the community in time to fulfill the proposed scope of services called for in the agreement.”

Williams went on to say, “... because the University’s role under the proposed contract primarily would be to provide clinical services delivery as opposed to academic services under the original contract, the proposed modified contract would fundamentally change the risk parameters.” (That is, risk to patient safety, the university’s financial stability, and public reputation should a medical mishap occur, as we believe will occur under the new Metro-Care structure.) “Our level of certainty about any organization’s ability to ensure coverage at the much-changed KDMC is low without the services of resident trainees.” University President, Dr Susan Kelly, commented today that public hospitals have traditionally relied on coverage by medical residents (qualified doctors training to be specialists) because of the scope of their skills and the heavy patient care demands. Nationally, teaching hospitals have been demonstrated to provide a higher level of care than community hospitals without residents do, especially to historically disenfranchised medical populations.

She added that The Charles Drew University’s intention is to ensure the highest quality of services to the medically underserved population of South Los Angeles. However, given the elimination of residency training at the hospital, and the other structural changes contemplated by the County, the University is not in a position to take that risk for itself or the community.

In the letter to LA County Supervisors, the Chair of the University’s Board said, “I should emphasize here the points that I have expressed repeatedly to Drs. Chernof and Loos in our two meetings since the September 22, 2006 decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to terminate KDMC’s Medicare Provider Agreement: (1) CMS did not cite failures in residency training or physician care in its lengthy report detailing its reasons for terminating the Provider Agreement; (2) the decision to terminate residency training in its entirety at KDMC was made by DHS and the County, and was neither required nor suggested by CMS; and (3) The Charles Drew University has been profoundly damaged by what we respectfully submit is a short-sighted and ill-conceived Metro-Care plan.”

President Susan Kelly, continued, “In line with our mission, we are actively seeking alternative ways to meet the medical needs of this underserved and neglected community. But we are simply not convinced that this proposed agreement would assure the level of patient safety that the people deserve and we demand.”