The Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System is in the process of acquiring Denver's Exempla Lutheran and Exempla Good Samaritan Hospitals. The process was slowed on Friday when an arbitration ruling prohibited the Sisters of Charity from paying $311 million to Community First Foundation (formerly the Lutheran Medical Center Foundation). Community First and the Sisters of Charity founded Exempla in 1997 in order "to own Lutheran Medical Center in Wheat Ridge and Good Samaritan Medical Center in Lafayette."
The arbitration ruling comes as a result of a lawsuit by the Exempla board to block the sale. Exempla's board believes the sale "would divert proceeds away from their intended medical purpose." In addition, the Exempla board has also raised the issue of a change in medical policies should a Roman Catholic organization own the hospitals.
In a story posted this morning, Wendy Norris at the Colorado Independent wonders how the hospitals will deal with reproductive health care and end-of-life issues should the hospitals be controlled by the Sisters of Mercy. "Local patients seeking reproductive health care or termination of invasive life support could soon face health care professionals invoking conscience clauses," she writes. Her concern is apt. Denver Business Journal:
If the transaction is completed, the Sisters of Charity would require Lutheran and Good Samaritan to adhere to Catholic medical directives that prohibit sterilization procedures, contraceptive services and end-of-life decisions such as the removal of feeding tubes.
Thanks so much for link, John.
It's an interesting question about the intersection of religion, patient-physician relationships and the big business of health care.
Posted by: Wendy Norris | June 08, 2009 at 02:23 PM
Thanks for covering this story!
Posted by: John Petty | June 08, 2009 at 02:34 PM
I keep wondering what happens when conscience clauses trump advanced directives. At what point does the medical community remember that they exist for patient care and without patients they no longer have a purpose?
Posted by: DKSampson | June 08, 2009 at 05:00 PM
Very good question, DK.
If the Sisters of Leavenworth (or any other religiously-based health care system) want to operate the business by denying certain types of care, they are within their rights.
The problem is that few patients can "vote with their feet" if they do not want doctrinal-limited care since health insurance restricts providers to pre-ordained networks.
It seems to me that one solution may be the public option, such as Medicare-for-All, currently being considered in the health insurance reform discussion in Congress, that wouldn't limit providers.
Posted by: Wendy Norris | June 09, 2009 at 09:18 AM
Hear! Hear! I agree with Medicare-for-All, but think it would have more salience if Medicare was in better shape financially.
Posted by: John Petty | June 09, 2009 at 02:30 PM
Without a real public option it would probably be better to have no health care 'reform' this year at all.
Posted by: Hypatia | June 10, 2009 at 08:29 PM
Everybody says they're for it, but I remember 1994 and I was sure something good was going to happen then and it didn't. Prospects do seem to be better, but, like you, I'm wary.
Posted by: John Petty | June 10, 2009 at 11:11 PM