Editorial: Removing obvious conflict

Thursday, Jan. 25, 2007 | 7:04 a.m.

U niversity Medical Center's chief of staff is elected by doctors to represent their interests and those involving patient care - a job that often places the chief of staff at odds with the hospital's medical director, who is charged with toeing the financial bottom line.

However, according to a story by the Las Vegas Sun's Marshall Allen on Wednesday, UMC's Dr. John Ellerton holds both positions, making it difficult to believe that both sets of interests can be fairly represented. After all, when Ellerton the chief of staff must argue on behalf of patient care, with whom does he negotiate - himself, as Ellerton the medical director?

It sounds ridiculous because it is. Ellerton is a well-respected chief of staff. He is paid $120,000 to oversee the oncology/hematology department and, as chief of staff, he is paid a $36,000 yearly stipend. But even doctors who support him in his capacity as chief of staff question how at the same time he can perform his duties as UMC's medical director, which pays him $230,000 yearly.

Granted, Ellerton doesn't have the official title of "medical director." But his 2004 contract with the recently fired UMC Chief Executive Lacy Thomas describes duties that include those of the UMC medical director's position, the Sun reports.

It is not a question of whether Ellerton is qualified for both jobs or a question of his integrity. No one should be in a position where he simultaneously represents opposing interests. Experts told the Sun that most hospitals have rules against the same person holding both jobs, but UMC does not.

This plainly evident conflict of interest should not exist. Ellerton must choose one job or the other, and UMC should enact a rule that bars one person from holding both positions.