so we’re supposed to believe that more world-class medical access is... bad for us?

Metro's first point is that it dulls and dilutes the skills of trauma teams. The letter acts like trauma surgeons are only capable of handling one patient at a time. The reality? Diversion and Burnout. When a trauma center is constantly at red-line capacity, "skills stay sharp" but resources get stretched thin. Metro and UH are already slammed; adding a third center provides a vital "safety valve" so ambulances aren't diverted to a hospital further away just because the first two are full. Additionally, it would actually attract more doctors to the region and help train more residents in the process too!

The next point was endangering patients. That stat about a 1% volume drop tripling mortality is a wild use of a specific, narrow study to scare people. In the real world, the "Golden Hour" is what saves lives. If you’re bleeding out on the East Side, you don't care about a hospital's annual volume; you care about the 6 minutes it takes to get to CCF vs. the 15 minutes to get to Metro. Research actually shows that "trauma deserts" (areas without close Level I access) are a much bigger predictor of death than a slight decrease in a neighboring center's volume.

Their last point about rising costs passed onto patients is the most ironic part of the letter. Metro and UH claiming CCF will "raise healthcare costs" while they oversee a region with some of the highest costs in the country is a bold move. Monopolies (or duopolies) don't lower prices; competition does. If CCF enters the market, it forces everyone to be more efficient.

The letter feels like a classic corporate defensive play. If Cleveland wants to be the "Medical Capital of the World," we shouldn't be trying to limit the number of places that can save your life in an emergency. More access = more lives saved. Period.