Normally, I consider myself a fairly astute and knowledgeable reader of the news. Thus, I must say that I have read the continuing coverage of the saga of the negotiations among the Kansas University medical school, the KU Hospital and St. Luke’s Hospital with growing consternation. After a month of almost daily news reports, editorials, guest editorials and various public statements by the various parties involved, I still find myself confused about what the fuss is all about.

As I understand it, the KU medical school is currently negotiating with St. Luke’s to enter into an “affiliation” that would send some medical students to St. Luke’s who might otherwise go to KU Hospital in exchange for payments by St. Luke’s to KU. The justification for this has been that it will strengthen KU’s attempt to be designated a national cancer center by the National Institutes of Health.

The leadership of KU Hospital has objected to this affiliation, apparently on the grounds that it would weaken the hospital by “diluting” its “brand,” whatever that means. Some legislators and editorial writers have objected, saying this proposed affiliation might weaken KU’s medical school in Wichita and reduce KU Hospital’s ability to serve the indigent population of Kansas. Others fear that such an affiliation will cause KU Hospital and medical school to lose doctors.

On the other side, proponents of the affiliation argue that without it, KU and Kansas City will not be able to become a national cancer center and that St. Luke’s will be forced to seek affiliation with distant, even out-of-state (Missouri) hospitals and medical schools, which will harm KU medical school. All of these competing issues have been complicated by the confidentiality of many of the discussions, personnel and personality conflicts, looming deadlines and vast sums of money being promised.

What I still haven’t seen, however, is a calm, detailed, factually supported account of what the benefits and detriments of the KU medical school-St. Luke’s Hospital affiliation will mean for Kansas, Kansas City, KU, KU Hospital and St. Luke’s. Isn’t it time that both sides stopped the name-calling, toned down the hostility and just laid out their arguments so that the public might have some idea of what’s going on?

I have been astonished over the past few weeks when I have asked various acquaintances in Lawrence and Kansas City if they understood the dispute. Virtually everyone, even folks who work at the affected institutions, seem unsure of precisely what the details of the dispute are. Everybody agrees on certain things: KU Hospital is important to Kansas; it is a regional medical center upon which the entire state depends. Everyone also wants the best for the KU medical schools in Kansas City and in Wichita. Their contributions to the welfare of all Kansans are undeniable.

Most folks also have agreed that having a national cancer center in Kansas City would be a good thing for Kansas and western Missouri. So my question is simple. Can’t someone put together a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed affiliation looking at both economic and social costs? Surely people on every side of the question have done such an analysis. If they haven’t they should. And if they have, why not share that analysis with everyone?

If there is a reason not to make such an analysis public, I’d like to be told what it is. This dispute has put a number of people, all of whom I believe want the best for KU, Kansas and Kansas City, at loggerheads. It is time to bury the hatchets. The future of KU Hospital and medical schools are too important to be endangered by angry rhetoric. It’s time to let everyone know the facts and let the people who ultimately will be affected, i.e., the people of Kansas, understand what is actually going on.