Foes of Cuts at King/Drew Rally

With a key vote scheduled for today, opposition is building to a proposal by Los Angeles County health officials to close pediatric and obstetric wards at Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center in an attempt to stabilize the troubled public hospital.

A hospital advisory board formed by the county Board of Supervisors is lobbying against the cuts. Two of the five supervisors want to delay the vote on the plan by six weeks. And about 100 protesters gathered Monday afternoon on the steps of the county Hall of Administration in downtown Los Angeles -- some carrying baby dolls -- and warned that children and mothers would suffer if King/Drew were downsized.

In a noisy rally that could be heard in the supervisors’ eighth-floor offices, the protesters chanted “Fix it! Fix it! Don’t cut it!” and shook signs with slogans, such as “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!” and “If King/Drew falls, so do they all.” Many viewed the ability to have a baby at King/Drew or to receive care for a seriously ill child there as a hard-won victory of the 1960s, when the hospital in Willowbrook, just south of Watts, was conceived.

In recent years, however, many area residents have gone elsewhere for care. About 600 babies were delivered at King/Drew in the 12 months ending June 30, down from about 4,000 per year a decade ago. Currently, only a few children are treated each day in the hospital’s pediatric ward.

The plan under consideration today would end some services at the hospital while expanding others.

Dr. Thomas Garthwaite, director of the county Department of Health Services, has proposed closing inpatient wards that are devoted to obstetrics, pediatrics and neonatology. He also would cut many of the staff and services needed to reopen the trauma unit, which closed earlier this year. But he would increase outpatient services for children and for those with such chronic illnesses as diabetes and high blood pressure, which afflict the mostly poor and minority neighborhoods that are served by King/Drew.

Garthwaite has said that the remaining pediatrics and obstetrics patients would easily find care at neighboring hospitals. But Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, whose district includes the hospital, and Supervisor Gloria Molina said they wanted proof and needed more information before voting. They also wanted the board to stop pursuing a proposal to hand over control of King/Drew to a private hospital company, an idea favored by the other three board members.

“It’s important for there to be before the board other alternatives than just the plan that Dr. Garthwaite put forward,” Burke said.

In a written motion to be considered today, Burke and Molina said they also wanted to allow more time for community members, elected officials and the hospital advisory board that was appointed by the supervisors to consider the impact of the proposed cuts.

The increasingly vocal objections to the plan virtually guarantee another raucous board meeting today over the fate of King/Drew, which has struggled with lapses in patient care for years. Almost a year ago, a plan to close the hospital’s trauma center galvanized similar opposition from community activists and state and federal lawmakers. The unit ultimately closed in March.

Garthwaite said Monday that a delay in considering his recommendations would be a mistake. Even if the board gives its go-ahead today, another public hearing and vote would be needed before any changes could take effect. King/Drew, he said, is in danger of losing its funding from the federal government if the pace of reforms does not pick up.

“The most important thing is to maintain hospital beds, the emergency room and access to care in the area of King/Drew Medical Center,” Garthwaite said.

Garthwaite insisted that he was not trying to close King/Drew and that no patients would be harmed by his proposals.

“No pregnant woman will have trouble finding obstetrical care and no kid is not going to get hospitalized when they need to be hospitalized,” he said.

In a letter to the supervisors last week, advisory board members said they were left out of important decisions involving the hospital. They also opposed Garthwaite’s proposed cuts on a 6-1 vote, with Garthwaite dissenting.

Jim Lott, vice chairman of the King/Drew advisory board and executive vice president of the Hospital Assn. of Southern California, said the advisory group needed to be made part of the formal review process so that any major plans regarding King/Drew would be vetted before they were presented to the supervisors.

The proposed reductions at King/Drew, he said, “do not address any patient or quality-of-care issues,” such as repeated failures by nurses to observe the plummeting vital signs of patients on cardiac monitors. “Don’t make cuts until you fix the problems plaguing the system,” he said.

Meanwhile, the consulting firm being paid $15 million this year to run King/Drew said it supported Garthwaite’s plan, for the most part. In a letter last week, an official with Navigant Consulting Inc. said 97% of obstetrics patients in the area around King/Drew deliver at other hospitals and 95% of children receive inpatient care elsewhere.

That did not satisfy those who attended Monday’s rally.

“We shouldn’t have to drive long distances to Harbor[-UCLA Medical Center] or St. Francis to deliver our children,” said Estela Lopez-Spears, a pregnant woman from South Los Angeles and a member of the Coalition for Health & Justice, the group sponsoring the rally. Lopez-Spears told the crowd that if she were to go into labor and King/Drew were closed, she would have to travel a long distance.

In an interview with a reporter before her speech, however, Lopez-Spears said she had not received prenatal care at King/Drew and had no plans to deliver her baby there. She would not say where she now receives care.

The coalition also released a survey of doctors and health administrators in which the vast majority said that the fate of King/Drew affected the entire county healthcare system. The survey questioned 50 doctors and health administrators who were drawn from the more than 26,000 in the county. The coalition did not say how the people surveyed were chosen.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich issued a written statement that chided the coalition for remaining “silent and on the sidelines when patients died and others received substandard medical care -- that resulted in the hospital’s loss of accreditation. Now they are demonstrating to preserve the status quo -- warts and all.”