Residents say cancer patients were turned away at Memorial Medical Center; advocates press council for enforcement, city says it retained consultants

Several residents used the Jan. 21 Las Cruces City Council public-comment period to repeat allegations that Memorial Medical Center (MMC) has denied or delayed treatment for cancer patients and to urge the city to enforce terms of its lease and ensure access to care.

Yoli Diaz, who has appeared before the council multiple times on the topic, told councilors she has raised reports of wrongful turnaways and alleged that MMC was illegally demanding payment up front. "This is a matter of life and death for many patients," Diaz said, adding that she has complained to the council repeatedly since 2021 and that the problem persisted into December 2024.

At the meeting other speakers echoed the concern. Public commenters said a pattern of denials has continued during a period when the hospital and the city have been in correspondence; they asked what enforcement measures the city had taken since a notice of breach was issued months earlier.

In response the city manager said the city has retained outside legal counsel and an independent consultant with experience in Medicaid, Medicare and Affordable Care Act safety-net requirements to assist in reviewing the lease and an asset purchase agreement tied to the hospital property. The manager said staff and the county are continuing joint work and that updates will be provided to council in the coming months. He also said the city has been in private meetings with hospital management and that council27s patience is appreciated while staff continues to pursue enforceable remedies.

Why it matters: The city is a co-owner of the land on which MMC sits, and city leaders and residents said the lease contains public-interest obligations related to charity care and access. Public commenters argued that enforcement tools under the lease should be used if the hospital is not meeting obligations; the city manager27s remarks show staff is pursuing additional legal and technical review before announcing enforcement steps.

What remains unresolved: Public speakers pressed for specific actions and deadlines. The transcript records the city manager27s commitment to return with updates but does not show a binding council directive or timeline for enforcement in this session. Advocates asked for clarity about what "levers" the city has identified and whether they have been used.

Ending

Councilors did not take an immediate enforcement vote at the Jan. 21 meeting; staff said they will report back to council after completing review with outside legal and technical advisors.