While I, like everyone else, love cheering for the underdog, I find myself in a situation where I cannot. I am writing in response to the Nov. 2 column by Ruth Ann Dailey ("Did UPMC Set Up Braddock to Fail?") and numerous other pieces chastising UPMC for its decision to close its Braddock campus.
The criticism is that by closing the Braddock hospital UPMC did not act as a community-centered charity but rather as a business-minded corporation. Since UPMC acquired Braddock Medical Center in 1996, it poured millions of dollars into the facility. If UPMC intended for Braddock to fail, the aforementioned action certainly was not a business-savvy decision.
People get angry when "not-for-profits" make money, particularly when they make a lot of it. The term not-for-profit does not mean that the organization should not generate excess revenue. It means excess revenue must be reinvested in the organization, not distributed to individuals for personal gain. A not-for-profit, just like any business, will cease to exist without net income. How would UPMC be able to build the new Children's Hospital and create hundreds of new jobs if it did not make any profit? UPMC is Pittsburgh's second-largest employer. Profit has to be on its priority list or the jobs of thousands of Pittsburghers would be in jeopardy.
We should not punish UPMC for its success. While I empathize with the community of Braddock, the decision to close the hospital is best for Pittsburgh in the big picture.
JESSICA FURNIER
Bloomfield
Posted
Nov 08 2009, 05:00 AM
by
Susan Mannella