Hospital ad under scrutiny

Adrienne Packer

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 | 10:52 a.m.

The Clark County district attorney's office is investigating a University Medical Center advertisement advocating the position held by state physicians that tort reform will resolve the medical malpractice crisis.

The advertisement appears to violate a law that prohibits the county -- an entity expected to remain neutral -- from using taxpayer funds to lobby residents on one side of an issue, officials said.

"We're working with the county manager's office to determine the circumstances under which the ad was placed and who authorized it," Deputy District Attorney Mary-Anne Miller said.

The full-page advertisement, authorized by UMC Chief Executive William Hale, ran in Sunday's combined edition of the Las Vegas Sun and Review-Journal and cost nearly $15,000.

The ad was crafted by Brown and Partners, which in May won a contract to provide public relations services for UMC. The firm also represents doctors in their battle with insurance companies and lawyers over skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums.

Dale Pugh, UMC's assistant administrator, said the hospital has studied Brown and Partners' dual roles and sees no conflict of interest.

"It is something we've talked about and discussed," Pugh said. "It's something we continue to look at and monitor. But at this point, we have not found there to be a conflict."

Mark Brown, president of the public relations company, also sees no conflict in representing doctors and the hospital. His firm does not lobby, it simply provides public relations services, he said.

"Obviously doctors are critical to the ongoing operation of any hospital and for the most part their interests are going to be one and the same," Brown said.

The first segment of Sunday's advertisement thanks officials who worked to reopen UMC's trauma center, which closed for 10 days after 58 orthopedic physicians resigned due to the increasing premiums. The second part says reform would resolve the problem.

"It's a solution that has worked in other states. Most importantly, it's a solution that will work in Nevada," the advertisement says.

"As a community, we must support (physicians) as they work to stabilize health care across Southern Nevada."

Miller couldn't immediately offer a legal opinion on the ad, but the case is similar to a situation in April when county commissioners asked to contribute money to a statewide campaign opposing the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

In that opinion, Miller said the $1.5 million could only be used for legal fees.

"It has been the long-standing opinion of this office that county funds may not be used in a political campaign to promote one side of an issue before voters," Miller wrote.

Sunday's UMC advertisement appeared more than a week before legislators are scheduled to gather in Carson City to consider two proposed bills designed to resolve the crisis and keep physicians who perform high-risk procedures.

Clark County Manager Thom Reilly said he was troubled by the ad because commissioners -- who double as the public hospital's board of trustees -- have yet to take a position on the malpractice issue.

Reilly said county policy clearly states that public money cannot be used to lobby the electorate. Further, he questioned the strategy of the hospital's timing shortly before the special session, which begins Monday.

"Politically, I don't think it's a smart move right before a special session when this will be addressed," Reilly said. "People have strong feelings about this, and the outcome of the special session can have dire consequences for UMC."

Reilly said the county conveys its opinions on issues by submitting bill draft requests. Clark County has two bill drafts to be considered during the regular legislative session that begins in February.

The distinction between submitting bill drafts and publishing essentially the purpose of those proposed laws through an advertisement is slim, Brown said.

"Where is the distinction of a public entity having bill drafts specific to UMC and its needs to allow the trauma center to stay open?" Brown said. "By the trauma center closing, the community realized it's an asset and a priority to keep it open. That's what this ad spoke to."

Pugh said UMC decided to run the ad because decisions made during the special session could greatly affect the hospital.

The hospital tossed its support behind the physicians because they're vital to keeping UMC's trauma center -- the only level one trauma center in the state -- open, Pugh said.

During a news conference last month, orthopedic physicians made it clear tort reform is needed to keep them at UMC, Pugh said.

"They said they're looking for meaningful tort reform," Pugh said. "We obviously need those physicians to keep the institution running -- not only the trauma center but other services."

Yvonne Atkinson Gates, one of three county commissioners who appeared at the same news conference, said the news conference was simply to urge the governor to call the special session, not to take a position on the debate.

"I'm a little surprised because I always thought we had to stay neutral," Atkinson Gates said. "I don't think we should take a position one way or another. This is an issue the Legislature has to address and that's what they're doing." Gerald Gillock, a medical malpractice attorney, said the hospital's motive in running the ad was transparent. Gillock agreed the hospital should remain neutral, but added he is not surprised officials are backing the doctors.

"It doesn't look good," Gillock said. "But it's a panic measure by the hospital. They're trying to convince their doctors they're doing everything they can."