Letter to the editor: UPMC’s positive impact | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: UPMC’s positive impact

In Bob Bauder’s article “AG Shapiro: UPMC’s ‘corporate greed’ hurting patients” (Feb. 7, TribLIVE), UPMC said its practices have increased competition in Western Pennsylvania, which benefits consumers. This statement stands in stark contrast to statements by Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who called UPMC’s practices “corporate greed.”

Many Western Pennsylvanians will agree that UPMC has tunnel vision when it comes to money, so UPMC needs to start reframing its arguments.

At one time, North Hills Passavant Hospital was referred to as “Pass Away Hospital” by some. Since its merger with UPMC in 1997, the hospital has evolved and received a multitude of awards, and the nickname was forgotten. This is a small example of UPMC’s larger positive impact in the community. UPMC does more directed-donor liver transplants than anywhere in the world. It has some of the best trauma and cancer centers. We are too quick to point fingers when insurance is at issue, without considering UPMC’s contributions to the community and to science.

I do not agree with UPMC’s tactics regarding the consent decree. I also do not want to see this news from the attorney general’s office turn into a mob-roast. The flip side is that it costs a significant amount of money to maintain UPMC’s programs.

The law requires a nonprofit hospital to provide a “community benefit.” UPMC’s stance could be better phrased in terms of investment in the community. UPMC attempts to make money, but at least it reinvests a bulk of it into research and development, which benefits the larger society.

Nicholas Logan

Oakland


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.