UNC Health Care’s Enterprise Fund has nothing to hide. Its audit, at the hands of the N.C. General Assembly, should be welcomed as an opportunity to reinforce Rex Healthcare’s status as a public entity under the guise of UNC Health Care.
With this audit, UNC Health Care can permanently dispel recent skepticism while instilling public trust that Rex is operating like a nonprofit entity committed to the service of Wake County patients — not like a private business.
The system’s financial transparency has recently been questioned. The N.C. House’s Select Committee on State-Owned Assets has been investigating whether Rex is competing fairly with private hospitals, like WakeMed Health & Hospitals. WakeMed attempted to purchase Rex earlier this year, only to be denied by UNC Health Care. That denial drew criticism from WakeMed and Duke Cheston, of the John William Pope Center, which have both questioned the system’s money flow and its use of state funds. The committee responded by recommending the audit.
Since May, UNC Health Care has argued with both WakeMed and the committee that Rex is a financial lifeline for the system. Karen McCall, vice president of public affairs and marketing for UNC Health Care, said if the system loses Rex, it may need more than the $18 million it receives each year from the state budget to sustain itself.
The committee has a right to question the Enterprise Fund’s financial state. The fund, which is used for projects between multiple entities, is the only reserve in the system that has never been audited. If money had been mishandled within the fund, there would have been no way to know until now. The system owes the public answers on how it uses taxpayers’ money.
In six pages worth of responses regarding Rex and the fund, UNC Health Care has made clear there is no cause for concern. An audit could prove those claims beyond a shadow of a doubt.
While the audit may not heavily influence the committee’s decision to sell Rex, it demonstrates UNC Health Care’s willingness to provide answers. That should be noted as the committee’s review proceeds.
