The latest Times-Picayune article on the Vitter/Kennedy/Tucker UMC proposal mischaracterizes the proposal.
While the article says: "
...the proposal from the three GOP figures actually says:
In other words, the T-P article is wrong to suggest that the trio wants the state to build a smaller new facility in the Mid-City footprint. They only want that IF a 250-bed facility cannot be recreated within the shell of the existing Charity Hospital. And based on the study conducted by FHL and authorized by the Louisiana Legislature, it could likely be done within the Charity shell.
Why did the Times-Picayune fail to mention that the alternate UMC plan includes a call for re-use of Charity Hospital?