Ruling in DHEC’s favor on heart center case welcome

WHEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE law judge rejected Lexington Medical Center’s request to open a third, unnecessary, heart center in the Midlands, he helped preserve the integrity of the system created to protect high-quality medical care in our state.

The hospital had appealed after the Department of Health and Environmental Control denied its request in 2004. DHEC officials said a third heart center in the Midlands would be duplicative and dilute surgical talent. Centers at Providence Hospital and Palmetto Health Richland adequately serve the area. It was an obvious conclusion; we had opposed Palmetto Health’s bid to build the second Midlands center a couple of years earlier, for the same reasons.

In siding with DHEC, Judge John D. Geathers noted that the number of heart patients at South Carolina hospitals has been declining. In 2000, state hospitals performed 6,473 open-heart surgeries. Four years later, they performed 5,850. Providence Hospital performed 1,100 in 1999, but that number declined to 939 in 2005. Palmetto Richland performed 499 surgeries in 2002, a number that dropped to 410 in 2005.

While we would like to see Lexington Medical drop its effort and use the time and money being spent to acquire a heart center to instead bolster some other area of health care where there is a need, the hospital has every right to appeal. That’s a part of the process.

That said, we hope hospital officials don’t continue a push to resolve this issue in the political sphere, as it tried to do this past legislative session. The House and Senate approved a special exception that would have changed the rules to allow Lexington Medical to establish an open-heart surgery center. Fortunately, Gov. Mark Sanford vetoed the legislation, and lawmakers sustained the veto. Mr. Sanford took a principled stance in saying Lexington Medical, and all other hospitals, must play by the established rules.

Had that ill-conceived measure become law, it would have undermined DHEC’s authority and dismantled the process that was designed to uphold quality and help control duplication and costs in medical care. That would have led to a free-for-all, with hospitals across the state seeking special exceptions for expensive new programs, whether they were needed or not. The result would have been ill-considered, unchecked duplication of facilities and programs statewide, increasing costs and lowering quality. Patients and taxpayers would have been left to pay the higher bill.

Lexington Medical Center is a good hospital that provides admirable service for this community. Lexington Medical — as well as the other local hospitals — is invaluable to the Midlands.

While it is essential that Lexington Medical and its counterparts do well, none of them should attempt to thrive by duplicating services unnecessarily. Unlike in other businesses, duplication in medical care can drive up costs and drive down quality, which would not be good for this community’s patients and taxpayers.