Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ expected veto of a legislative proviso requiring the approval of the Kansas University Hospital Authority board and Kansas Board of Regents before any binding action could be taken to form an affiliation between KU Hospital and KU Medical Center and St. Luke’s Hospital would be unfortunate.

It’s not known whether there are enough votes to override a veto on this matter.

What is known, however, is that the governor is so committed to seeing an affiliation between KU and St. Luke’s that she will use any means to push it through – including trying to pack the KU Hospital Authorityboard in violation of state law.

Either unknowingly or deliberately, Sebelius broke a state statute by trying to place individuals she wanted on the board so they would vote as she wished on matters such as the giveaway to St. Luke’s.

The statute states that when there is a vacancy on the KU Hospital Authority board, a nominating committee of hospital directors SHALL nominate two, and not more than three, people to fill the vacancy. These names SHALL be sent to the governor, who SHALL select one of the nominees and send that person’s name to the Kansas Senate for confirmation. Also, no nominee shall play any role in hospital affairs until confirmed by the Senate.

Sebelius rejected the nominees sent to her by the nominating committee to fill three vacancies on the board. She not only rejected the nominees but also proceeded to tell hospital board members who she wanted appointed to the board.

Her choices were KU Provost Richard Lariviere, Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson and Johnson County banker Bob Regnier. As yet, they have not been confirmed by the Senate, but that did not stop Lariviere or Parkinson from taking part in hospital board meetings.

Now, members of the Kansas Senate face the very serious question of what they will do about the governor breaking the law. Is it all right for the governor to break state law while others are punished for such actions?

What do senators think about taking part in a confirmation vote on nominees who were placed before them in an unlawful manner? Do the senators, themselves, become part of the illegal action if the vote goes forward? A senior member of the Senate said he did not know about the matter until recently when someone called it to his attention.

The governor, Chancellor Robert Hemenway, Lariviere and Executive Vice Chancellor Barbara Atkinson have spent countless hours trying to pressure lawmakers to approve giving St. Luke’s the KU brand name. They have been strong in their opposition to requiring a majority vote of KU Hospital Authority board members and regents to approve a deal with St. Luke’s.

They do not want a full Senate vote on the matter because they think they have a better chance of successfully lobbying a smaller group of senators to approve the illegal nominations. Earlier this week, a senator told this writer there would not be a full Senate vote on the confirmations but that the nominations would be put off until after the Legislature adjourns and handled by the Senate Confirmations Committee during the interim session.

Apparently, it’s OK to break state laws if they are broken by the right people. How do Kansas senators justify such actions?

¢Much has been said about the numerous “deadlines” set by St. Luke’s officials for finalizing an agreement with KUMC. These deadlines have come and gone, and St. Luke’s officials claim they have had discussions – some even said plans were set – for St. Luke’s to drop affiliation efforts with KU and make similar arrangements with Washington University and Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis. They also have said they are working with Boston and Houston hospitals and cancer centers.

Earlier this week, a faculty forum was held at the KU Medical Center with Atkinson and KU Hospital President and CEO Irene Cumming in attendance. Two interesting facts surfaced at this meeting.

In the fall of 2005, St. Luke’s officials approached KU medical school officials about a joint venture in cancer research; KU turned down the offer.

Why, after turning down an offer just two years ago, are KU officials now using every tactic to force a giveaway to St. Luke’s that provides little, if any, benefit to KU? What has changed?

The second announcement was by Cumming, who said that in the span of five days, she had been in contact with three senior officials at Washington University, all of whom said they had not had discussions with St. Luke’s.

A major Kansas City leader heading the effort to swing the KU-St. Luke’s deal claims, “There is no question but that St. Luke’s has a deal with Washington University. St. Luke’s will be going with Washington University and Barnes-Jewish Hospital if KU doesn’t agree to a plan.”

He added, “Regardless of what Irene Cumming says, St. Luke’s has a deal. It will be with either St. Louis or Harvard.”

Who is telling the truth? So far, an assessment of the explanations, answers, transparency and honesty clearly would favor Cumming, various sources at KU Hospital and KU Medical Center and some Kansas legislators. The threats and double-talk of St. Luke’s proponents have severely damaged their credibility.

¢It should be of interest to those considering an affiliation with St. Luke’s, providing up to 100 KU-trained medical residents to the hospital and giving away the KUMC brand, that St. Luke’s seems to have some serious trouble holding on to some of its doctors.

Two highly recognized bone marrow specialists at St. Luke’s reportedly will be leaving for similar positions at KU. Officials of Alliance Radiology, P.A., of Kansas City have informed St. Luke’s officials they are ending their contract with the hospital as of April 30.

According to Alliance Radiology officials, the group no longer will provide services at St. Luke’s because “we have a fundamental disagreement over the best way to deliver radiology services to patients, and we cannot accept the terms proposed by the hospital administration.”

Alliance Radiology’s letterhead lists 16 doctors currently working at St. Luke’s who apparently will be terminating their services at the end of this month.

¢Why are Hemenway, Lariviere and Atkinson so determined to partner with St. Luke’s? What does KU gain? It also is difficult to understand how St. Louis, Boston or Houston cancer centers would strengthen their operations by affiliating with St. Luke’s.

¢It is not surprising the weak regents, most of whose members have been appointed by Sebelius, are telling state legislators to get their noses out of KUMC and KU Hospital affairs. They also have announced they want the governor to veto the legislative provision that calls for approval by the KU Hospital Authority board and the regents before there can be any affiliation with St. Luke’s. It’s more evidence of the pressure by the governor and lobbying by Hemenway and Atkinson.