Last month, two of the six people who were wounded in a mass shooting in Humboldt Park were treated at Mount Sinai Hospital. Mount Sinai was also one of eight Chicago Hospitals flagged in a recent report by Public Citizen as being at high risk of closing under upcoming Medicaid cuts.
Writing in as a medical student and orthopedic trauma surgeon at the University of Chicago, we know from our own history that the city doesn’t have to imagine the impacts of one of its major trauma centers closing. When U. of C. closed its adult trauma center in 1988, the South Side went nearly 30 years without one. People died on longer ambulance rides to hospitals up north. It took years of organizing by residents who had buried loved ones and neighbors to get a trauma center finally reopened in 2018.
Our trauma center treats roughly 1,200 gunshot survivors a year, and nearly 1 in 3 of those survivors will lose their insurance within a year of their injury. Without insurance to allow for follow-up care, minor complications become expensive emergency room visits that the hospital absorbs.
Safety-net hospitals have relied on Disproportionate Share Hospital payments to offset these costs for decades. However, those payments are set to be cut by roughly $24 billion, but were delayed to 2028. Medicaid already reimburses trauma care at rates lower than the actual cost of treatment, so with the rollbacks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act projected to strip Medicaid coverage from millions of Americans, the unresolved future of the Disproportionate Share Hospital program does not leave these hospitals much room to balance their finances.
As 2028 approaches, we must remember it took far more to reopen the South Side’s trauma center than it would have to keep it from closing. Rather than postponing these cuts again at the last minute, Congress should repeal them outright and help these hospitals continue to serve the communities most in need.
Armin Pazooki, medical student, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine
Dr. Mary Kate Erdman, assistant professor of orthopedic surgery, University of Chicago
Fix accessible crosswalk signals pronto
Stand at a Chicago intersection and listen. If you can see the walk signal, you’ve probably never noticed there’s anything to listen for. If you can’t, that faint chirp or spoken word — when it exists at all — is the only thing standing between you and a six-lane crossing.
Last month, the federal monitor delivered its first report card on Chicago’s accessible crosswalk signals for impaired pedestrians. On paper it’s a win: The city installed signals at 78 intersections, eight more than required. Buried in the report is the number that matters more: Not one of the 103 inspected intersections was found fully compliant.
I’ve spent enough time around technical specifications to know what “not fully compliant” usually hides. It rarely means a broken device. More often, it’s a locator tone mounted out of reach, a push button on the wrong pole, a vibrotactile arrow pointing a few degrees off or a spoken message that starts a beat late.
As Rachel Weisberg, an attorney at Disability Rights Advocates, told the Sun-Times, the signals are usable but not as effective as they should be. That’s not acceptable.
Only 165 intersections have been installed so far. Fixing the process now is far cheaper than reopening thousands of intersections later. Chicago must install 110 more intersections this year, climbing to 245 by year eight. If every signal built today carries the same flaws, the city will reach 2040 having stacked thousands of devices without revisiting one. Fixing a foundation after the fact always costs more than pouring it right the first time.
An engineer’s first instinct isn’t to add more units — it’s to check whether the process was “buttoned up” correctly from the start. Certify signals before they count. Test them with the people who use them. Measure compliance, not installation.
Chicago has 15 years left on this order. Let’s get to work. For the person standing there, listening, the target shouldn’t be a number that looks good on a news release. It should be one that lets them cross the street without guessing.
Yunus Tozal, civil engineer, Village of Niles
In agreement about United Airline’s service
It’s most unfortunate that letter writer Bil Roby-Tubach of Lincoln, Nebraska, had such a miserable experience with United Airlines employees at O’Hare Airport. It’s a terrible reflection on our fair city. But it’s not surprising. I spent decades flying in and out of O’Hare for business. Whenever possible, I avoided United and its loud, rude, arrogant employees on the ground and in the air. I found that all other airlines — U.S.-based and international carriers — were preferable.
I once dealt with a United flight attendant on a long flight from Europe who was so angry and over the top that I too filed a complaint. United’s answer was a $500 voucher. Big deal.
United’s newest TV commercial has the tag line: “You can take a lot of airlines out of Chicago. But you can never take the Chicago out of this airline.” What does this even mean? I don’t think it is a good reflection on Chicago, given United’s lousy customer service reputation.
I’m sorry that Mr. Roby-Tubach might have gotten a poor impression of Chicago because of United employees. There are “friendly skies” up there. But not where United flies.
Blaise J. Arena, Des Plaines
No question, Trump is a leader
I take issue with reader Linda Hendelman’s recent letter saying Donald Trump can’t be described as a “leader.” She quotes Merriam-Webster’s definition, “a capacity to lead,” and then inserts her own feelings. By claiming that Trump “pushed the country” proves she thinks he is a leader. Logic takes a back seat to her feelings. Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well.
Donald Nauyokas, Brighton Park