State shouldn’t deregulate trauma care.

Orlando’s darkest day spotlighted one of its brightest assets. After the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history at the Pulse nightclub last year, critically wounded victims were rushed three blocks to the Level 1 Trauma Center at Orlando Regional Medical Center. Through the extraordinary skill and heroic efforts of the trauma team at the hospital, dozens of lives were saved.

But a proposal in the Florida Legislature threatens to erode the quality of care available at the trauma centers at ORMC and other hospitals in Florida. The bill, sponsored in the House by Republican Rep. Jay Trumbull of Panama City, would do away with a state system that apportions trauma centers throughout Florida based on need. Central Florida’s only

Failing to manage the growth Level 1 trauma center of centers statewide could exhaust proved its mettle after the supply of highly the Pulse shooting. trained surgeons and other essential but limited personnel A proposal to and resources for trauma care. It deregulate trauma could dilute the volume of centers would threaten patients necessary to keep centers their quality and raise sharp and help sustain their costs. medical training programs. And it could increase health costs overall, because trauma care is so expensive.

Currently Florida is divided into 19 trauma service areas, and capped at 44 trauma centers. There are 34 operating, including 10 Level 1 facilities, which handle the most seriously injured victims. The Level 1 centers are required to be ready to respond around the clock.

Supporters argue Florida’s growing population justifies lifting the cap on trauma centers. But under the current system of evaluating applications for new centers, the Department of Health is directed to take into account a region’s population, as well as its number of trauma cases.

Trumbull’s bill is among several proposals up for consideration in the Legislature this session that take a free-market approach to health care. The theory is that more competition will lead to lower costs. While that theory might apply in some medical-practice areas, critically injured victims and their families don’t have time to shop around for treatment.

Supporters of Trumbull’s bill also argue it would reduce litigation from hospitals with trauma centers that routinely stymie applications from other hospitals applying to open competing centers. We’re sympathetic to efforts to cut back on legal costs, but not if they compromise the quality of the current trauma system in the process.

Rather than wait on state approval, hospitals would be permitted under Trumbull’s bill to open trauma centers upon receiving accreditation from the American College of Surgeons. Yet even that organization has warned that failing to regulate the opening of new trauma centers could lead hospitals to locate facilities where they can make the most money — “areas that can yield an economic advantage” — instead of where they are most needed.

Leaders in the Safety Net Hospital Alliance of Florida, whose members include ORMC parent company Orlando Health, have warned that lifting the cap could lead hospitals to open Level 2 trauma centers to divert patients and revenue from more expensive Level 1 centers. HCA, a private hospital chain supporting Trumbull’s bill, opened two Level 2 centers in Central Florida last year. In 2014, the Tampa Bay Times published an investigative report that concluded HCA had taken advantage of higher fees for trauma centers to boost its profits.

It makes sense for legislators to be on the lookout for ways to update and improve the system for regulating trauma care in Florida. The successful response to the Pulse shooting at Central Florida’s only Level 1 trauma center, however, makes a compelling argument against repealing the system.