Kansas Board of Regents members this week said they will seek more information about the possible merger and/or affiliation among the Kansas University Medical Center, KU Hospital and St. Luke’s Hospital in Kansas City, Mo.

They should have been asking for details long before being faced with a March 31 deadline KUMC and St. Luke’s set for the deal.

This proposal was hatched last spring and was kept under wraps until late last year. Few at the medical center – other than KUMC Executive Vice Chancellor and Dean Barbara Atkinson and Chancellor Hemenway along with Kansas City and St. Luke’s insiders such as Bill Hall of the Hall Family Foundation and Irv Hockaday, former president of Hallmark – knew much about the plan.

Kept in the dark were Irene Cumming, KU Hospital president and executive officer, one of the nation’s most recognized hospital administrators, and many among the KUMC staff. It wasn’t by accident; it was on purpose.

The regents were satisfied to sit back while the negotiations occurred in private.

Weeks ago members of the Board of Regents were asked about the proposal and the answer was they didn’t think they should be “micromanaging” the university and that they had full confidence in the actions and policies of Chancellor Hemenway.

Even though the plan called for alliances and commitments among St. Luke’s, KUMC and KU Hospital (which Kansas taxpayers have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into building the excellence and reputation of the facilities), Kansas legislators were not asked for their opinion on this historic action.

Gradually, however, news about the plan started leaking and the manner in which the scheme had been handled created the suspicion that something was being done that deserved far more transparency. What were the planners trying to hide or slip through without anyone noticing?

Eventually House Speaker Rep. Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, decided the matter needed far more investigation and he introduced a bill in the Kansas House requiring any deal to be approved by the Legislature. He has also told members of the Board of Regents that he wants more information.

This is what triggered the long overdue reaction by the regents to “produce responses to both of the questions the Speaker (Neufeld) has raised, and to any other questions individual Regents may have about this initiative.”

Guess who is to provide this added information to the regents? Chancellor Hemenway and Vice Chancellor Atkinson, both of whom were central players in putting the KU-St. Luke’s deal together and both of whom are committed to the plan. Is there any question as to how they will present the story? Talk about letting the foxes into the chicken house.

If the regents want a full study of the situation and to consider possible consequences, they should pledge there will be no recrimination or punishment for those who testify in opposition to the plan. Next, they ought to ask for the opinions of Irene Cumming, who serves as chairwoman of the Board of Directors of the University HealthSystem Consortium, which is an alliance of the clinical enterprises of the major academic health centers across the nation.

Along with some of the doctors at KUMC, they should also seek the opinions of representatives from the Kansas Medical Society (which has 4,500 Kansas doctors as members), and others who have serious questions or reservations about the merger.

It is disappointing regents have not been on top of this situation from the outset. Likewise, it is disappointing as well as puzzling why members of the Kansas Legislature have not taken an interest in a breakup in the historic relationship between KUMC and KU Hospital.

And why hasn’t someone in the Senate had the courage to speak up and ask for more information?

It is surprising how little the doctors, researchers and staffers of KUMC and KU Hospital know about what is being proposed and how this will affect their activities and careers.

A KU medical staff meeting was held Monday and it is reported there was “widespread concern,” “minimal support for the current letters of intent” and “many expressions of concern.” That concern must be addressed. The general questions – which the Regents should demand answers to – arising out of this meeting were:

¢ How does the faculty from each department feel they have adequate representation in this process?

¢ Is the $400 million offer from KU Hospital off the table?

¢ Is there enough manpower to satisfy the clinical facility’s needs?

¢ What is the “out” clause of the affiliation agreement?

¢ Do we have enough protection for program directors to override political presence?

¢ How do we protect the clinical enterprise?

¢ When does the faculty council meet? (It hasn’t met since last October.)

¢ Where is a facilitator to make things work on a shared common vision?

¢ Why does Stowers Institute for Medical Research care if there is a residency affiliation between St. Luke’s and KU?

¢ Why is Stowers mandating a St. Luke’s affiliation?

¢ Is the March 31 date to complete the agreement a negotiable deadline?

¢ What are the issues with St. Luke’s (trust, academic titles, retribution, indigent care)?

¢ Where will KUMC obtain funds if KU Hospital cannot meet its financial expectations?

¢ How will KU Hospital concerns be addressed when they are not recognized by the dean and chancellor? (There were six outstanding major issues defined in a letter of intent Jan. 23.)

¢ What are plans for new leadership at KU Hospital if Irene Cumming should be forced to resign?

These are just a few of the many questions that should be answered. Again, there is far too much secrecy.

Money is one of the major issues and may be of particular concern when some suggest KUMC’s fiscal position is not sound and that Atkinson may be pressing for the deal as fast as possible because of her desire to bring in more dollars to meet shortfalls.

St. Luke’s is offering to pay KUMC $100,000 per medical resident per year, for 100 residents over a 10-year period. That’s a lot of money.

However, Atkinson is reported to have rejected a $400 million offer from KU Hospital over a 10-year period, as she is said to have claimed there were too many strings attached to the offer.

The entire matter is a mess and it didn’t have to be this way. It was pushed hard by St. Luke’s interests and Atkinson.

There hasn’t been strong leadership and vision by KU officials. They have been overly influenced by several Kansas City leaders, they have bent to pressure, and they should have been basing their decisions on what is best for KU and Kansas.

At this stage, the best thing to do would be to disregard the March 31 deadline – step back, disclose all details of the possible agreement and affiliation, consider what is best for KU and Kansas, consider the importance of an excellent plan for collaboration in research among Kansas City medical and research facilities, work closely with Stowers, strengthen rather than weaken KU Hospital, discard the need to provide residents for St. Luke’s and take advantage of the resources and patients of other greater Kansas City hospitals.

Again, it is a sad situation and does not reflect well on KUMC, the university and those on the Board of Regents as well as a number of the Kansas legislators – all of whom played a role in letting this matter become such a dangerous and embarrassing situation.