Good signs in hospital's access debate

Last week’s El Camino Hospital District board meeting posed an important question: Just where do you draw the line with public access to hospital information?

There remains no direct answer to that question. But the fact that the district board and hospital CEO Lee Domanico were willing to address it head-on with substantial discussion is commendable and represents a step forward.

The local League of Women Voters prompted last week’s events after members observed that little information was discussed in public at district board meetings. The League delivered a May 23 letter asking for the hospital to conduct its business more openly.

The origins of the debate, however, go back years as doctors, staff and residents have raised questions, mainly about hospital finances. It certainly is understandable. The failed integrated delivery system of the mid-1990s ran up record deficits and nearly destroyed the hospital.

The board and CEO Lee Domanico explained that as an “enterprise business,” El Camino competes with other hospitals. Releasing certain information makes it vulnerable to competitors.

That makes sense. However, information such as administrators’ salaries and specific construction costs related to rebuilding the hospital seem like reasonable requests, and it appeared from last week’s meeting that such information would be accessible.

A lump-sum figure on top administrators’ salaries, for instance, could help the public understand whether the hospital is in line with other similar institutions or is spending too much.

Domanico has already taken the first important step by releasing his own salary information. The board also has supported public access by pledging release of IRS form 990, which details the top five administrators’ salaries and retirement packages.

These are good signs. After all, the public built this hospital and continues to pour money into it, as 2003’s Measure D, a $148 million bond measure to rebuild the hospital, shows plainly. The public has always been an active partner.

We’re glad to hear that League members plan an ongoing dialogue with hospital officials over public access. The League’s watchdog role is much appreciated.

Board members responded to a few doctors at last week’s meeting as if the doctors’ information requests represented distrust of management.

However, doesn’t releasing information show the hospital can be trusted? Greater access could help skeptics see “the glass half-full,” as one board member put it.

Surely, hospital officials have been frustrated with some they view as troublemakers. But the hospital can’t withhold information based on its potential uses. And based on its overwhelming community support, hospital officials will be better off on the side public disclosure. Such openness cements the partnership between the public and the hospital.