Key Issues Involved in New USC Hospital

Congratulations! Your editorial (Feb.. 14), “Way to Go?” has educated the medical community in regard to the key issues involved in the new proposed USC University Hospital.

Several potential problems were clearly identified, which can only be solved by adequate consultation with leaders in the surrounding medical community. A project such as this will undoubtedly have significant impact on the medical community of Los Angeles. Some issues still remain vague.

Approximately 10 years ago an organization known as CATH was formed by the medical school. It stands for “Central Area Teaching Hospitals” and is composed of 10 major hospitals in the greater Los Angeles area. One of its objectives was to expose the medical students to a “wealthier” type of medical consumer. Another objective was to give the medical school clinical faculty an avenue by which they could do consultative work in the private sector. These programs will be severely cut or eliminated totally once the new hospital is functional.

The next most important issue appears to be the unwillingness of university faculty to work in a mixed environment in order to deliver health care to a larger segment of society. Private physicians at these CATH hospitals still retain the majority of political power. Therefore, the medical school faculty plays a secondary role while working outside the university.

Those of us in private practice devote the great majority of our time to delivering health care within the community setting. At the other end of the spectrum are the full-time medical school clinical faculty whose major responsibility is training physicians and doing research. It is unrealistic and unfair for the university to try to obtain the best of both worlds, higher financial rewards and academic prestige, for its faculty members. Certainly a happy medium exists in this regard: however the university has failed to define just where that middle of the road lies.

In order that the new hospital will prosper, the board of trustees of the university must be willing to meet sincerely with leaders in the private medical community in a cooperative rather than competitive spirit. Once this has been accomplished, only then can both groups be able to benefit from this new addition to our medical community.

ROBERT A. BELTRAN MD

Los Angeles