University of Michigan lining up donors for new outpatient cancer center
A new outpatient cancer treatment center, including a hotel and conference center, will be a reality at the University of Michigan’s North Campus Research Complex if Max Wicha gets his way, Crain’s Detroit Business reported.
Max Wicha
U-M is creating a hub of cancer expertise at the NCRC. The university announced in August that it was creating the Translational Oncology Program at the NCRC. U-M said it would consist of up to 40 researchers and would attempt to better bridge the gap between scientific research and new patient treatments.
The NCRC is the former home of Pfizer in Ann Arbor. U-M bought the complex, consisting of 2.2 million square feet, in 2009. In November of 2012, the university said roughly 1,700 people were working at the complex.
Comments
PhillyCheeseSteak
Mon, May 6, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.
This project sounds interesting, however I wonder if U-M Health System is creating confusion? Already there is the cancer center at the "main" hospital, and the large East Ann Arbor Health Center, further east on Plymouth Road. (I don't know if cancer treatment is available there.) Will a 3rd treatment center be confusing for people?
jpud
Mon, May 6, 2013 : 1:47 p.m.
Great idea which responds to the needs of the people of the state of michigan for improved cancer care. Why not open and start growing the cancer program today in empty space in the children's hosptial? Finally, a plan that is in line with the aging demographics of the state of Michigan. Kudos to Dr. Wicha for showing bold leadership.
silo
Mon, May 6, 2013 : 2:38 a.m.
Not "North Campus Research Center"... It is called the "North Campus Research Complex" as it contains approximately 28 buildings and has many shared resources and core services...
Cindy Heflin
Mon, May 6, 2013 : 11:23 a.m.
You are correct. That change has been made.
Hoping4aCure
Mon, May 6, 2013 : 12:46 a.m.
This sounds like a great project. You could donate to a cancer charity and see 20% to 30% disappear to fundraising and administrative costs (Komen, ACS, etc.) or you could support a local institution that is also doing world-class research. Seems like a no-brainer.
JRW
Mon, May 6, 2013 : 1:32 a.m.
Fundraising at UMHS and the rest of the campus has a very high overhead. Look up the salaries of those fundraising staff sometime. Most of the fundraising execs drive beemers or other fancy cars, reflecting their salaries. The expense accounts for the fundraising efforts at UM are extraordinary. So, a big % of any donation supports the overhead costs of that fundraising machine.
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, May 5, 2013 : 5 p.m.
A tax free hotel and convention center? I had no idea the public university was in the hotel business. How long until Dave Brandon and the athletic department start seizing property via eminent domain to build hotels for Football events?
Sparty
Sun, May 12, 2013 : 7:01 p.m.
Perhaps the families of those seriously ill with cancer would prefer to be on sight with their loved ones to be as close as possible? How many currently sleep with their loved ones in their rooms rather than leave the hospital campus ... perhaps this is an option that they would consider rather than driving off of the campus, across town to another hotel ?
JRW
Mon, May 6, 2013 : 1:29 a.m.
MedInn at UMHS is not free for families. They have to pay for lodging. With a new hotel on north campus, that will not be free for families, the UM Cancer Center will be in the hotel business rather than use the hotels in the city, generating profits, which is their goal.
a2citizen
Sun, May 5, 2013 : 9 p.m.
Sparty, I understand and support the reasoning for Ronald McDonald houses. Mr Wicha is not talking about building a hotel at Motts There are a half dozen hotels located less than a mile from the NCRC. If the hotel is offering free lodging to the families of patients I will support it. But UM.inc should not be allowed to compete with businesses.
Sparty
Sun, May 5, 2013 : 6:58 p.m.
The UMHS currently operates Med Inn for families of ill patients. Many hospitals have Ronald McDonald's Houses, as does UofM for the same purpose. Did you not realize that families of ill patients often need to stay close by their loved ones undergoing treatments? Who is talking eminent domain? They are talking about using THEIR OWN SPACE at their North Campus Research Center. Did you read the article?
trespass
Sun, May 5, 2013 : 4:44 p.m.
Donations for medical care facilities don't make sense to me. The medical care will generate big revenues so why shouldn't the facility be paid from patient care dollars and research grant overhead dollars? If I was donating money, I would want to donate to a project that could not otherwise be built.
blue85
Mon, May 6, 2013 : 4:31 p.m.
"For a non-profit institution, the umich hospital system sure doesn't charge that way." As a not for profit, the system charges to recover costs and earn, at most, a margin of around 3%. Margins are used for budget smoothing and for capital improvements. What evidence do you have that UM is not charging like a not for profit? I suggest you take your insider information to the IRS and blow the whistle immediately. In the alternative, simply share with us your keen insights into how the UM system charges and in what wise its fee framework is not consonant with the same charges at other institutions with the same cost structure. In the accounting profession and in the analyst profession, the analyst/accountant is required to NOT confuse fact with opinion. Confusing fact with opinion demonstrates either an unethical desire to mislead (at worst) and incompetence (at best). It is my opinion that you have presented no facts and are confusing the two.
blue85
Mon, May 6, 2013 : 4:27 p.m.
You are ignoring the bootstrap issue, or the chicken and egg issue: you can't make a capital investment out of operating cashflows if there is no capital to generate those flows. Yes, the care will generate revenue at time1 once a facility has been built at time0, but before time1, there is no facility to generate the revenue. UM tries to earmark funds before a shovel hits dirt. This can be done with a donor commitment at spot time or time zero, or with a donor pledge if the donor has credibility. The same logic applies to grants. Some posters on these pages argued that under sequestration, the university was not losing money, it was losing increases it had yet to receive. Well, this is a reason that logic doesn't work: you use committed research dollars to plan and to hire and/or build. If you expect to receive an increase and it doesn't arrive, your ability to plan/hire/build goes out the window.
jpud
Mon, May 6, 2013 : 1:51 p.m.
Research grant dollars are facing 5% across the board cuts, while patient care revenue is facing a 2% cut under sequestration. All of the wonderful things being done in the health system are only possible because of the generosity of donors. Left to the vageries of the free market alone, many needs would go unmet.
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, May 5, 2013 : 5:02 p.m.
For a non-profit institution, the umich hospital system sure doesn't charge that way.