<p>UChicago opened its new hospital today, the $700 million, 1.2 million sq. ft. Center for Care and Discovery. It's part of an ambitious expansion of biomedical research at UChicago that will see 6 new buildings and 3 million sq. ft. of research space in phases in coming years.</p>
<p>Government grants often help pay the cost of salaries for biomedical researchers as well as facility costs in some cases.</p>
<p>Trauma centers are expensive and lose a lot of money. I was hoping a range of donors could start a fund to build and maintain a Level-1 trauma center at UChicago. The south side of Chicago has literally some of the highest need for this facility in the country. While the university itself probably can’t take such a loss, hopefully public-minded folks (or perhaps government funds?) could’ve earmarked money to create and maintain such a center for the good of the community. BUT, no luck. </p>
<p>The lack of this facility has only worsened relations between UChicago and the south side. It’s sad.</p>
<p>I was involved in organizing and marching in the protest today, and I just want to say that it makes me happy to see alums concerned about this issue, too. The last time I posted on here, someone called me out for claiming that the university still has a unpleasant relationship with the Southside community, and I’m glad that that’s not the prevalent attitude among most alums.</p>
<p>It’s really sad. From a public policy perspective, the South Side really should have a Level 1 trauma center - the neighborhood certainly needs one. At the same time, I understand that such a center is very expensive and costs a hospital system a lot of money. As a private hospital, UChicago has no responsibility to construct a center if the costs are prohibitively high.</p>
<p>That’s why I’m so sad that alternative methods of funding couldn’t be found. Perhaps donors could have stepped in, or perhaps the hospital could’ve formed partnerships with the state for government funding? I’m just surprised this wasn’t done. It’s really unfortunate.</p>
<p>I’m a little suspicious of the argument that the costs alone are preventing the UCMC from opening a trauma center. The medical center made a net profit of $148,207,000 and a net asset of $1,164,975,000 at the end of 2011. Moreover, the UCMC is registered as a non-profit, charitable hospital and thus receives tax breaks and property tax breaks intended as, in a sense, a gift for providing charity care. But the UCMC “receives annual property tax breaks that were estimated at nearly three times (and total tax breaks estimated at nearly six times) what the [it spends] annually on charity care.” And if the UCMC claims that it cannot afford to run a trauma center, at the very least, we have to wonder where this money is going.</p>
<p>Here’s an article with more in-depth information about the medical center’s role as a non-profit. The numbers on net profit and assets were quoted from one of my professors, by the way.</p>
<p>[PropertyProf</a> Blog: Gun Violence, Property Taxes, and Community on Chicago’s South Side](<a href=“PropertyProf Blog”>PropertyProf Blog)</p>
<p>It doesn’t explain where all the net profit goes, but it explains the extent of charity care the hospital already provides (without acknowledging any of the arguments made by the previous article). By the way, the FAQ’s assertion that trauma victims “are not at risk” is false. Students for Health Equity, the undergrad student group working on the campaign, has shown that there’s a significant difference between the mortality rates of trauma victims on the South East side and the South West side (which has a much closer trauma center). They’ll be holding a research panel with the human rights committee in the next couple of weeks, and I’ll try to pass along their information.</p>