Editorial: Court confident in UPMC, Shapiro showdown | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Editorial: Court confident in UPMC, Shapiro showdown

1222961_web1_ptr-CHsuperheroes2-042519
Kristina Serafini | Tribune-Review
Jim Zaremba, dressed as Batman, and Rick Bollinger, as Spiderman, begin to lower themselves down the side of UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh from the roof as they and other window washers from Allegheny Window Cleaning Inc., also donning superhero costumes, clean the exterior windows at the Lawrenceville hospital.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice David Wecht clearly has a lot of confidence in lawyers.

When the court issued a split-decision ruling Tuesday regarding Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s attempt to force a resolution to the ticking time bomb that is the end of the UPMC-Highmark agreement, Wecht showed a great deal of faith that everything could work out.

“We are confident that the skilled advocates before us will be able to marshal adequate extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent expeditiously, and to promptly build a narrowly focused record sufficient for the fact-finder to interpret the contested provision,” Wecht wrote.

The court opted not to change the June 30 deadline that looms just one month out. One point for UPMC, which called the ruling a victory. The court also opted not to just call Shapiro’s argument dead, instead sending it back to Commonwealth Court to re-argue that point. One point for Shapiro, and by extension, Highmark.

Which means after months of debate, negotiation and legal posturing, the whole issue of who will be able to get cancer treatment at all of UPMC’s hospitals, and who will be able to get heart surgery, and who will be able to get a knee replaced, and who will be able to afford a home and food after paying for it all up front, is still not resolved.

And even if Commonwealth Court does get the parties back in front of judges to go over the issue of the 2014 consent decree’s looming expiration, that just moves the chains on one issue. It doesn’t guarantee that it won’t all happen again when a new deadline is on the horizon.

The problem isn’t a contract that spells out when things start and stop and who pays for what. The problem is that nothing is what it seems.

Health care is big business except when it is prime politics. UPMC and Highmark are both insurance companies, except when they are hospitals. They are nonprofits, except when they need to focus on market share and bottom lines. Sick people are patients except when they are customers.

Wecht believes lawyers can resolve this in 30 days. Maybe lawyers are lawyers except when they are superheroes.

Categories: Opinion | Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.