by James B. Edwards, DDS President, MUSC

In recent months, a number of people locally and throughout the state have inquired of me whether MUSC’s affiliation with Columbia/HCA was “on” or was it “off.” The answer to that question requires an awareness of what has transpired with this process.

As you will recall, the The Medical Society of South Carolina brought legal action alleging that the proposed MUSC affiliation was illegal as it violated the South Carolina Constitutional Prohibition of State agencies “joint venturing” with a private entity. The society further alleged that Act 390 authorizing MUSC to enter the affiliation was invalid as it was not properly passed by the South Carolina Legislature and was “special legislation” passed to benefit only MUSC where a general law was required. There were other related claims raised by the society dealing with the South Carolina Procurement Code.

After more than a year in the court system, the Circuit Court issued its opinion on Feb. 19. The court found in MUSC’s favor on three of the five major issues but ruled that the law authorizing or empowering MUSC to enter into this or any other arrangement was invalid because of the manner in which it was passed and because it was “special legislation.”

After careful review, and after speaking with other agencies who felt that the judge’s ruling may cast doubt on former laws passed that might also be challenged as special legislation, MUSC decided to appeal the court’s decision to the S.C. Supreme Court to obtain clarification on these important legal issues. An important element in this decision was MUSC’s commitment made to the S.C. Legislature, the S.C. Attorney General’s Office, and the S.C. Budget and Control Board that it would see a S.C. Supreme Court decision before making any commitments.

MUSC’s appeal will seek a final judicial decision of affirmation that MUSC may enter into an affilation with a for-profit or not-for-profit entity. MUSC will also ask for clarification and guidance as to the parameters of authority state universities have to dispose or lease real or personal property and to obtain a refusal of the court’s ruling that special legislation is improper in these circumstances.

The appeal is not a show of defiance or arrogance, or a needless exercise. Much has changed over the last two years. The MUSC Medical Center, through the dedication of MUSC employees, prospered and received numerous national awards and an accreditation with commendation for its hospital. We find ourselves in the envious position of having time to reexamine all of the issues and then decide whether to go forward with the affiliation with Columbia/HCA or another health care company, maintain status quo as a “stand alone” institution, or affiliate with another group of independent health care providers.

Our (S.C.) Supreme court will not decide “what-if” cases or hypothetical problems. Legally, the Columbia/HCA proposal is the only offer on the table and the original authorization to proceed has not been revoked by MUSC’s Board of Trustees. We, therefore, have a real legal controversy which is “ripe” for adjudication. If the S.C. Supreme Court finds in MUSC’s favor, MUSC is not committed or mandated to proceed in any direction, but will have a clear and binding guide to the authority we have for whichever direction is chosen.

As stated above, our goal at the Medical University continues to be provision of the very best in education, research and patient care. As we meet the challenges of a changing health care environment, be assured that all decisions by the administration and the MUSC Board of Trustees will be made in the best interest of the people of South Carolina.